Content deleted Content added
m stub sort |
Biogeographist (talk | contribs) added hatnote; replaced vague relative time phrase "In the past few decades" with "Since the 1980s" per MOS:RELTIME; added refs & citation templates, "See also" section |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{For|the meaning in Hegelian and Marxist thought|Dialectical logic}} |
|||
Since the 1980s, European and American [[logic]]ians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for '''logic and dialectic''' through formalisation, although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times. |
|||
==History== |
==History== |
||
There have been pre-formal treatises on argument and [[dialectic]], from authors such as [[Stephen Toulmin]] (''The Uses of Argument''), [[Nicholas Rescher]] (''Dialectics''),<ref>{{cite journal|last= |
There have been pre-formal treatises on argument and [[dialectic]], from authors such as [[Stephen Toulmin]] (''The Uses of Argument''),<ref>{{cite book |last=Toulmin |first=Stephen |date=2003 |origyear=1958 |title=The uses of argument |edition=Updated |location=Cambridge, UK; New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=0521827485 |oclc=51607421 |doi=10.1017/CBO9780511840005}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Hitchcock |editor1-first=David |editor2-last=Verheij |editor2-first=Bart |date=2006 |title=Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation |series=Argumentation library |volume=10 |location=Dordrecht |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=1402049374 |oclc=82229075 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5}}</ref> [[Nicholas Rescher]] (''Dialectics''),<ref>{{cite journal|last=Pinto|first=Robert C.|title=Book Review: ''Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge'' by Nicholas Rescher|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-last=Jacquette|editor-first=Dale|title=Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T65moyMMioYC|date=2009|location=Frankfurt|publisher=Ontos Verlag|doi=10.1515/9783110329056}}</ref> and van Eemeren and Grootendorst ([[pragma-dialectics]]).<ref name="Eemeren">{{cite book |last1=Eemeren |first1=Frans H. van |last2=Garssen |first2=Bart |last3=Krabbe |first3=Erik C. W. |last4=Snoeck Henkemans |first4=A. Francisca |last5=Verheij |first5=Bart |last6=Wagemans |first6=Jean H. M. |date=2014 |title=Handbook of argumentation theory |location=New York |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=9789048194728 |oclc=871004444 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5}}</ref> One can include works of the communities of [[informal logic]] and [[paraconsistent logic]].<ref name="Eemeren"/> |
||
==Defeasibility== |
==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.<ref> |
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.<ref>For surveys of work in this area see, for example: {{cite journal |last1=Chesñevar |first1=Carlos Iván |last2=Maguitman |first2=Ana Gabriela |last3=Loui |first3=Ronald Prescott |date=December 2000 |title=Logical models of argument |journal=ACM Computing Surveys |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=337–383 |doi=10.1145/371578.371581}} And: {{cite book |last1=Prakken |first1=Henry |last2=Vreeswijk |first2=Gerard |date=2005 |chapter=Logics for defeasible argumentation |editor1-last=Gabbay |editor1-first=Dov M. |editor2-last=Guenthner |editor2-first=Franz |title=Handbook of philosophical logic |edition=2nd |volume=4 |location=Dordrecht; Boston |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers |pages=219–318 |isbn=9789048158775 |doi=10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3}}</ref> |
||
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> |
|||
==Dialog games== |
==Dialog games== |
||
{{main|Game semantics}} |
{{main|Game semantics}} |
||
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 a [[semantics of logic]], one that is very general in applicability. |
Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue.{{Cn|date=July 2017}} Such games can provide a [[semantics of logic]], one that is very general in applicability. |
||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Argumentation framework]] |
|||
* [[Argumentation theory]] |
|||
* [[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 01:45, 2 July 2017
Since the 1980s, European and American logicians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for logic and dialectic through formalisation, although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times.
History
There have been pre-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument),[1][2] Nicholas Rescher (Dialectics),[3][4][5] and van Eemeren and Grootendorst (pragma-dialectics).[6] One can include works of the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic.[6]
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.[7]
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.[citation needed] Such games can provide a semantics of logic, one that is very general in applicability.
See also
References
- ^ Toulmin, Stephen (2003) [1958]. The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005. ISBN 0521827485. OCLC 51607421.
- ^ 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 1402049374. OCLC 82229075.
- ^ Pinto, Robert C. (1978). "Book Review: Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge by Nicholas Rescher". Informal Logic. 1 (3).
- ^ Hetherington, Stephen (2006). "Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2006.07.16).
- ^ Jacquette, Dale, ed. (2009). Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783110329056.
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ 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. 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. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3. ISBN 9789048158775.