| Revision as of 11:24, 12 April 2016 editChalst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,286 editsm Minor fixes in lede← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:54, 12 April 2016 edit undoFouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,349 edits adding reflistNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| CI Chesñevar, AG Maguitman, R Loui - ACM Computing Surveys, 2000 and Logics for defeasible argumentation, | CI Chesñevar, AG Maguitman, R Loui - ACM Computing Surveys, 2000 and Logics for defeasible argumentation, | ||
| H Prakken, Handbook of philosophical logic, 2002 for surveys of work in this area.</ref> | H Prakken, Handbook of philosophical logic, 2002 for surveys of work in this area.</ref> | ||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 11:54, 12 April 2016
In the past few decades, European and American logicians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for logic and dialectic by formalising dialectical logic or argument. There had been pre-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument), Nicholas Rescher (Dialectics), and van Eemeren and Grootendorst (Pragma-dialectics). One can include the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic. However, 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. 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.
References
- See Logical models of argument, CI Chesñevar, AG Maguitman, R Loui - ACM Computing Surveys, 2000 and Logics for defeasible argumentation, H Prakken, Handbook of philosophical logic, 2002 for surveys of work in this area.