Logic and dialectic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Formal scientists have attempted to combine logic and dialectic through formalisation. These attempts include pre-formal and partially formal treatises on argument and dialectic, systems based on defeasible reasoning, and systems based on game semantics and dialogical logic.

History[edit]

Since the late 20th century, European and American logicians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for dialectic through formalisation,[1]: 201–372  although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times.[1]: 51–140  There have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument, 1958),[2][3][1]: 203–256  Nicholas Rescher (Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, 1977),[4][5][1]: 330–336  and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (pragma-dialectics, 1980s).[1]: 517–614  One can include works of the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic.[1]: 373–424 

Defeasibility[edit]

Building on theories of defeasible reasoning (see John L. Pollock), systems have been built that define well-formedness of arguments, rules governing the process of introducing arguments based on fixed assumptions, and rules for shifting burden.[1]: 615–675  Many of these logics appear in the special area of artificial intelligence and law, though the computer scientists' interest in formalizing dialectic originates in a desire to build decision support and computer-supported collaborative work systems.[6]

Dialog games[edit]

Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue.[citation needed] Such games can provide a semantics of logic, one that is very general in applicability.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Eemeren, Frans H. van; Garssen, Bart; Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca; Verheij, Bart; Wagemans, Jean H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5. ISBN 9789048194728. OCLC 871004444.
  2. ^ Toulmin, Stephen (2003) [1958]. The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005. ISBN 978-0521827485. OCLC 51607421.
  3. ^ Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart, eds. (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Argumentation library. Vol. 10. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5. ISBN 978-1402049378. OCLC 82229075.
  4. ^ Hetherington, Stephen (2006). "Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2006.07.16).
  5. ^ Jacquette, Dale, ed. (2009). Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783110329056. ISBN 9783110329056.
  6. ^ For surveys of work in this area see, for example: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Maguitman, Ana Gabriela; Loui, Ronald Prescott (December 2000). "Logical models of argument". ACM Computing Surveys. 32 (4): 337–383. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.702.8325. doi:10.1145/371578.371581. And: Prakken, Henry; Vreeswijk, Gerard (2005). "Logics for defeasible argumentation". In Gabbay, Dov M.; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of philosophical logic. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 219–318. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.295.2649. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3. ISBN 9789048158775.