| Revision as of 08:11, 13 April 2016 editYobot (talk | contribs)Bots4,733,870 editsm WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (12002)← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:00, 13 April 2016 edit undoChalst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,286 edits Sectionise. Add section, Dialog gamesNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| In the past few decades, European and American ]ians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for '''logic and dialectic''' by formalising '''dialectical logic''' (cf. ] for the special treatment of dialectic in Hegelian and Marxist thought) or dialectical ]. There |
In the past few decades, European and American ]ians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for '''logic and dialectic''' by formalising '''dialectical logic''' (cf. ] for the special treatment of dialectic in Hegelian and Marxist thought) or dialectical ]. | ||
| ==History== | |||
| There have been pre-formal treatises on argument and ], from authors such as ] (''The Uses of Argument''), ] (''Dialectics''),<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rescher|first=Nicholas|title=Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge|url=http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2809|date=1978|journal=Informal Logic|volume=1|issue=#3}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Hetherington|first=Stephen|title=Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics|url=https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25075-philosophical-dialectics-an-essay-on-metaphilosophy/|date=2006|journal=Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews|issue=2006.07.16}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|editor=Jacquette,Dale|last=Rescher|first=Nicholas|title=Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T65moyMMioYC|date=2009|publisher=Ontos Verlag}}</ref> and van Eemeren and Grootendorst (]). One can include the communities of ] and ]. | |||
| ==Defeasibility== | |||
| However, building on theories of ] (see ]), 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 ], though the computer scientists' interest in formalizing dialectic originates in a desire to build ] and computer-supported collaborative work systems.<ref>See Logical models of argument, | |||
| 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> | ||
| ==Dialog games== | |||
| Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue. Such games can provide semantics for many logics. | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 09:00, 13 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 (cf. dialectical logic for the special treatment of dialectic in Hegelian and Marxist thought) or dialectical argument.
History
There have 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.
Defeasibility
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.
Dialog games
Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue. Such games can provide semantics for many logics.
References
- Rescher, Nicholas (1978). "Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge". Informal Logic. 1 (#3).
- Hetherington, Stephen (2006). "Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2006.07.16).
- Rescher, Nicholas (2009). Jacquette,Dale (ed.). Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Ontos Verlag.
- 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.
This article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |