Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 33-06, Section: A, page: 2979. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1972.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 33-05, Section: A, page: 2423. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1972.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 20-11, page: 4409. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1960.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 23-05, page: 1740. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1962.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 23-05, page: 1741. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1962.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 28-06, Section: A, page: 2293. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1967.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 20-12, page: 4685. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1960.

Over the past two or three decades there has arisen a fairly widespread dissatisfaction with the usefulness of the formal logical techniques of Frege and Russell for teaching the evaluation of reasoning in natural language. The problem with these formal methods, I argue, lies in certain questionable presuppositions that underlie these methods. / My own case will rest mainly on the following three claims: first, that the millennia old belief that there are two fundamentally different types of argument, viz., induction and deduction, is crucially mistaken and hampers rather than helps our understanding and evaluating of reasoning; second, that the belief that only formally valid arguments are deductively valid is a false dogma, one that is pernicious not only in its own right, but also because it has lent support to the other dogmas we must set aside if we are to have any radical progress in our understanding of and instruction in reasoning in natural language; and third, that logic is better seen not as a body of knowledge, but as a practice or art; and, as with any art, we come to perform it better not through the learning of a system of propositional knowledge but through appropriate training. In addition, I shall outline what I take the appropriate training to be, one that makes use of the imaginative search for counterexamples, and which makes logical training a more practical enterprise. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 53-07, Section: A, page: 2404. / Major Professor: E. F. Kaelin. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1992.

My dissertation deals with the Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus, a contemporary of Aristotle's. The argument was one of the most famous pieces of temporal and modal reasoning in ancient philosophy. It purports to prove that a proposition is possible if and only if it is true or will be true. The argument runs as follows: (1) Everything that is past and true is necessary; (2) The impossible does not follow (from? after?) the possible; (3) Therefore, nothing is possible which neither is nor will be true. Unfortunately, all accounts of the Master that have survived are so sketchy that we cannot determine whether the argument is valid or not. / Several reconstructions of Diodorus' argument (by A. N. Prior, Nicholas Rescher, and others) have been proposed. The purpose of the reconstructions is to show, using the resources of modal and tense logics, that the argument is valid. I analyze and critique most of these proposals, arguing in the final chapter for a new reconstruction which I believe to be more defensible than existing ones. / The Master Argument is important for several reasons. It elicited much discussion among ancient philosophers and logicians both because of its reduction of modal logic to tense logic and its bearing on the free will/determinism debate. But, its influence also extends to contemporary philosophy and logic. In the 1950s and 60s, the Master inspired formal work on Diodorean systems. Much of the work on the calculus of tenses, e.g., by Prior, was undertaken in view of investigating Diodorus' argument. Finally, the literature that the argument has spawned has enriched and deepened our understanding of the connections between matters modal and temporal. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 53-07, Section: A, page: 2406. / Major Professor: Robert W. Beard. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1992.

This is part one of an examination of Plato's Method of Collection and Division, a method which Plato describes in the later dialogues as the method of dialectic. Included are chapters on the Phaedrus, Sophist and Statesman as well as a separate survey of the passages in those dialogues in which the method is mentioned. Questions concerning the requirements for making a collection or a division and the connection between collections and division are addressed. Also included is discussion of the connection between collections and divisions and true forms. / An interpretation of the Phaedrus is offered that sees the method of collection and division as playing a major role in the dialogue. It is shown that the structure and unity of the Phaedrus are intricately connected with the points Plato is making about the method. / The actual collections and divisions that are made in the Sophist and Statesman are examined with an eye towards formulating a view of the sophisticated version of the method that Plato is offering. It is suggested that this sophisticated view is possible only after the discussion of not-being in the Sophist, and even then there are some conflicts in the requirements of the theory. A glance ahead at one dialogue which is not covered in this study, the Philebus, indicates how Plato might resolve some of the conflicts in his requirements for the theory. The suggestion is that there is much more to be learned about the theory from the Philebus and other late dialogues. / It is clear from this study that a complete understanding of the Method of Collection and Division is necessary for a complete understanding of Plato's metaphysics in general. This study points towards the questions that the second part of this examination must answer. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 47-12, Section: A, page: 4410. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1986.