There are several formal systems for persuasive dialogue. Dialogue systems are multi-Agent systems, and this contrasts with the general lack of any agency in standard logics other than in the case of epistemic and deontic logics. Dialogue systems have been called logics. A logic usually has a semantics and a proof system, and questions of soundness and completeness arise. Any dialogue conducted according to the rules of a dialogue logic is a complex process. Dynamic Logic is a (...) logic of processes, with a possible world semantics. This paper is a preliminary exploration of transforming the dialogues of dialogue logic into complex Dynamic Logic processes with emphasis on semantic models. The transformation gives rise to many questions, three of which are discussed. Dialogue logic includes commitment sets which behave in a way similar to belief sets and undergo changes during any dialogue. There are issues as to the relationship between belief and commitment, and whether the logics of belief change apply to commitment stores. There is also the issue of the logical nature of the evaluation of dialogues as legal or illegal. (shrink)

The first part of this paper presents asympathetic and critical examination of the approachof Shahid Rahman and Walter Carnielli, as presented intheir paper “The Dialogical Approach toParaconsistency”. In the second part, possibleextensions are presented and evaluated: (a) top-downanalysis of a dialogue situation versus bottom-up, (b)the specific role of ambiguities and how to deal withthem, and (c) the problem of common knowledge andbackground knowledge in dialogues. In the third part,I claim that dialogue logic is the best-suitedinstrument to analyse paradoxes of (...) the Sorites type.All these considerations lead to philosophicallyrelevant observations concerning principles of charityon the one hand, and compactness on the other. (shrink)

The extensive research in logic conducted by using concepts and methods of game theory as documented in this collection of papers, allows to see dialogue logic in a number of new perspectives. This situation may gain further clarity by looking back to the inception of dialogue logic in the late fifties and early sixties.

Stone-walling dialogues are exercises in structured non-cooperation. It is true that dialogue participants need to cooperate with one another and in ways sufficient to make possible the very dialogue they are now having. Beyond that there is room for non-cooperation on a scale that gives great offence to what we call the Goody Two-Shoes Model of argument. In this paper, we argue that non-cooperation dialogues have perfectly legitimate objectives and that in relation to those objectives they need not be considered (...) at all subpar to conversations that brim with sunny amity.Two categories of stone-walling non-cooperation dialogues are here examined. They are called MindClosed and NoEngage. They are exemplified by the following cases:1. Hostile Police Interrogation2. Judicial Cross-Examination3. Department Store Complaints Management4. Lakatosian Science5. Gödel's First Incompleteness Proof. (shrink)

In this paper, we define a class of dialogue games for Johansson’s minimal logic and prove that it corresponds to the validity of minimal logic. Many authors have stated similar results for intuitionistic and classical logic either with or without actually proving the correspondence. Rahman, Clerbout and Keiff [17] have already specified dialogues for minimal logic; however, they transformed it into Fitch-style natural deduction only. We propose a different specification for minimal logic with the proof (...) of correspondence between the existence of winning strategies for the Proponent in this class of games and the sequent calculus for minimal logic. (shrink)

An overview of different versions and applications of Lorenzen’s dialogue game approach to the foundations of logic, here largely restricted to the realm of manyvalued logics, is presented. Among the reviewed concepts and results are Giles’s characterization of Łukasiewicz logic and some of its generalizations to other fuzzy logics, including interval based logics, a parallel version of Lorenzen’s game for intuitionistic logic that is adequate for finite- and infinite-valued Gödel logics, and a truth comparison game for infinite-valued (...) Gödel logic. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to work toward an explicit logic and semantics for a game theoretically inspired theory of action. The purpose of the logic is to explicate the conceptual machinery implicit in the dialogue-game model of rational discourse developed in Carlson (1983).A variety of ideas and techniques of modal and philosophical logic are used to define a model structure that generalizes the game theoretical notion of a game in extensive form (von Neumann and Morgenstern, (...) 1944). Relative to this model structure, semantic characterizations are given to the action-theoretic notions oftime, possibility, belief, preference, ability, intention, action, andrationality. The unification of these characterizations under the game-theoretical paradigm leads to insights about the logical interdependences between these concepts. (shrink)

Dialogue theory, although it has ancient roots, was put forward in the 1970s in logic as astructure that can be useful for helping to evaluate argumentation and informal fallacies.Recently, however, it has been taken up as a broader subject of investigation in computerscience. This paper surveys both the historical and philosophical background of dialoguetheory and the latest research initiatives on dialogue theory in computer science. The main components of dialogue theory are briefly explained. Included is a classification of the (...) main types of dialogue that, it is argued, should provide the central focus for studying many important dialogue contexts in specific cases. Following these three surveys, a concluding prediction is made about the direction dialogue theory is likely to take in the next century, especially in relation to the growing field of communication studies. (shrink)

No detailed description available for "From Axiom to Dialogue".

This paper presents a framework for the generation of coherent elementary conversational sequences at the speech act level. We will embrace the notion of a cooperative dialogue game in which two players produce speech acts to transfer relevant information with respect to their commitments. Central to the approach is that participants try to achieve some sort of balanced cognitive state as a result of speech act generation and interpretation. Cognitive states of the participants change as a result of the interpretation (...) of speech acts and these changes provoke the production of a subsequent speech act. Describing the properties and the dynamics of the mental constructs that constitute the participants’ cognitive states, such as beliefs and commitments, in relation to the various dialogue contributions is an essential aspect of the game. Although simple in its basic form, the framework enables us to produce abstract conversations with some properties that agree strikingly with coherence structures found in, for instance, Conversation Analysis. (shrink)

In the 21stcentury, there is a turn of thinking toward its reorientation first of all to the human as an author of thought and not to the nature, existing independently of us and of the process of scientific knowledge obtaining. It is possible to see the difference of these two types of thinking in the context of dialogue between W. Whewell’s philosophy and the scientific investigations after the scientific revolution in the beginning of the 20thcentury. In the philosophy of 21stcentury, (...) man is a social being and this is the basis of social philosophy. The artificial world around us is created by a human, it has its foundation in the laws of thinking but not the laws of nature. The foundations of both systems are quite different. In what way can we achieve mutual understanding between them? From both sides some aspects can be put forward, for instance, the concept of a mediator of a thought. This concept is studied actively by W. Whewell and by philosophers of our time, and this leads in both cases to some unexpected interpretation of the basic question of philosophy: the border between thing and thought is becoming less noticeable. We can come to the same result, going by different ways. Whewell finds common qualities for some group of things. Social philosophers are interested in what makes things different. Not one of these idealizations corresponds completely to the reality. Always something is not taken into consideration. A thinker chooses out of real world some of its characteristics that become a basis of a thought system, which explains everything but in its own way. The paper demonstrates the way of possible creation of a new type of thinking. (shrink)

Formal dialogue games have been studied in philosophy since at least the time of Aristotle. Recently they have been applied in various contexts in computer science and artificial intelligence, particularly as the basis for interaction between autonomous software agents. We review these applications and discuss the many open research questions and challenges at this exciting interface between philosophy and computer science.

This paper presents a dialogue system called Lorenzen–Hamblin Natural Dialogue (LHND), in which participants can commit formal fallacies and have a method of both identifying and withdrawing formal fallacies. It therefore provides a tool for the dialectical evaluation of force of argument when players advance reasons which are deductively incorrect. The system is inspired by Hamblin’s formal dialectic and Lorenzen’s dialogical logic. It offers uniform protocols for Hamblin’s and Lorenzen’s dialogues and adds a protocol for embedding them. This unification (...) required a reformulation of the original description of Lorenzen’s system to distinguish “between different stances that a person might take in the discussion”, as suggested by Hodges. The LHND system is compared to Walton and Krabbe’s Complex Persuasion Dialogue using an example of a dialogue. (shrink)

This very witty work, intended as an introductory text in logic, takes the form of a dialogue between teacher Penny and student Nickel, the dialogue illustrating Bierman's conception of the way to teach logic. But the book is perhaps of more value for its contributions to the philosophy of language, many of them admittedly "unfamiliar and unconventional." Among them: ascription of linguistic functions to physical objects with a consequent reduction of "referential" semantics to syntax; and the beginnings of (...) a "calculus of concepts" giving formal procedures for distinguishing sense from non-sense.—A. J. (shrink)

This article presents a case of the application of Buddhist yinming logic in a public debate between Buddhists and Daoists at the court of Emperor Tang Gaozong, as recorded by Daoxuan in his Ji Gujin Fo Dao Lunheng. The application was successful in the sense that the Buddhist vanquished his Daoist opponent. Yet, yinming logic was not used in other debates against Daoists, not even by Buddhists trained in this particular logic. Why? Looking for answers to this (...) question, the article argues for the importance of common analytical ground in inter-religious, and by extension intercultural debate. (shrink)

This book presents comparisons of recent accounts in the formalization of natural language with informal conceptions of interaction that have been developed in both psychology and epistemology. There are four parts which explore: historical and systematic studies; the formalization of context in epistemology; the formalization of reasoning in interactive contexts in psychology; the formalization of pathological conversations. Part one discusses the Erlangen School, which proposed a logical analysis of science as well as an operational reconstruction of psychological concepts. These first (...) chapters provide epistemological and psychological insights into a conceptual reassessment of rational reconstruction from a pragmatic point of view. The second focus is on formal epistemology, where there has recently been a vigorous contribution from experts in epistemic and doxatic logics and an attempt to account for a more realistic, cognitively plausible conception of knowledge. The third part of this book examines the meeting point between logic and the human and social sciences and the fourth part focuses on research at the intersection between linguistics and psychology. Internationally renowned scholars have contributed to this volume, building on the findings and themes relevant to an interdisciplinary scientific project called DiaRaFor which was hosted by the MSH Lorraine from 2007 to 2011. (shrink)

I show that resolution-oriented discourse has a distinctive normative structure, partially subject to theoretical explication.Those with a keen commitment to the idea of working out differences of opinion dialogically may fail to grasp what such a commitment entails. In the heat of discursive conflict, discerning our obligations is often difficult. These difficulties yield a general lack of clarity concerning the norms in question. Yet theory can inform reason-giving practice by clarifying the normative structures underlying such discourse. A logic of (...) disputation must be anchored in the relevant features of concrete discursive contexts, even as it abstracts from their particularities. Different types of challenge present claimants with different options for redeeming the claim challenged, and defending moves, too, open up and close off various options for the challenger. I show that the structure of the normative "field" at any point in the dialectic can be characterized with surprising precision. (shrink)

Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...) dialogue, and of infinite dialogues, is treated in section 1.4. Other options, e.g., as to the number of attacks allowed with respect to each statement, are listed in section 1.5. Section 1.6 explains the concept of a chain of arguments.From section 2 onward four types of dialectic systems are picked out for closer study: D, E, Di and Ei. After a preliminary section on dialogue sequents and winning strategies, the equivalence of derivability in intuitionistic logic and the existence of a winning strategy (for the Proponent) on the strength of Ei is shown by simple inductive proofs. (shrink)

Not only verbal signs, but any situation or semiosis is a relational process that presents different degrees of dialogism. In fact, the sign calls for a response from another sign, that is, the interpretant. Semiosis is an open dialogue among various interpreted and interpretant signs. In this sense, the sign is a dialectic unit of self-identity and otherness. All communication processes are based not only on modeling (Sebeok), but also on dialogism. Modeling and dialogism are pivotal concepts in the study (...) of semiosis. The dialogic relation between sign and interpretant has semiotic consequences from the perspective of the typology of signs, and logical consequences from the perspective of the typology of inference and argument. Logic is dia-logic. A new critique of reason is a critique of dialogic reason. (shrink)

"Science is rooted in conversations," wrote Werner Heisenberg, one of the twentieth century's great physicists. In Quantum Dialogue, Mara Beller shows that science is rooted not just in conversation but in disagreement, doubt, and uncertainty. She argues that it is precisely this culture of dialogue and controversy within the scientific community that fuels creativity. Beller draws her argument from her radical new reading of the history of the quantum revolution, especially the development of the Copenhagen interpretation. One of several competing (...) approaches, this version succeeded largely due to the rhetorical skills of Niels Bohr and his colleagues. Using extensive archival research, Beller shows how Bohr and others marketed their views, misrepresenting and dismissing their opponents as "unreasonable" and championing their own not always coherent or well-supported position as "inevitable." Quantum Dialogue, winner of the 1999 Morris D. Forkosch Prize of the Journal of the History of Ideas, will fascinate everyone interested in how stories of "scientific revolutions" are constructed and "scientific consensus" achieved. "[A]n intellectually stimulating piece of work, energised by a distinct point of view."—Dipankar Home, Times Higher Education Supplement "[R]emarkable and original. . . . [Beller's] arguments are thoroughly supported and her conclusions are meticulously argued. . . . This is an important book that all who are interested in the emergence of quantum mechanics will want to read."—William Evenson, History of Physics Newsletter. (shrink)

Two utilitarian defenses, traceable to Bentham and Mill, arecommonly offered for patents. It is contended that patents induce innovation, and thatpatents induce disclosure of innovation. Patents on some or all of the human genomepose particular challenges for these defenses. In the first instance, patents on nucleotidesequences entail the perverse notion of human reproduction qua infringement. In the second place, when such patents are available (as is presently the case), the two defenses involve a counterfactual claim, viz., that if there were (...) no such patents, biotechnological progress would wane. Even if these challenges are met, concerns about respect for humanity generate opposition to property interests in compounds manipulated outside the human body but significantly homologous to compounds found in humans. This stance about things human might appear to commit the fallacy of division. In a dialogue between a Kantian and a utilitarian, arguments for and against property interests in the human genome are presented. (shrink)

This paper aims to develop the implications of logical expressivism for a theory of dialogue coherence. I proceed in three steps. Firstly, certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue are identified. Secondly, I describe a variant of the multi-agent natural deduction calculus that I introduced in Piwek (J Logic Lang Inf 16(4):403–421, 2007 ) and demonstrate how it accounts for the aforementioned structures. Thirdly, I examine how the aforementioned system can be used to formalise an expressivist account of logical vocabulary (...) that is inspired by Brandom (Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment, 1994 ; Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism, 2000 ). This account conceives of the logical vocabulary as a tool which allows speakers to describe the inferential practices which underlie their language use, i.e., it allows them to make those practices explicit. The rewards of this exercise are twofold: (1) We obtain a more precise account of logical expressivism which can be defended more effectively against the critique that such accounts lead to cultural relativism. (2) The formalised distinction between engaging in a practice and expressing it, opens the way for a revision of the theory of dialogue coherence. This revision eliminates the need for logically complex formulae to account for certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue. (shrink)

This paper shows how a dialogue system for information-seekingdialogues can be implemented in a type-theory-based syntax editor,originally developed for editing mathematical proofs.The implementation gives a simple logical metatheory tosuch dialogue systems and also suggests new functions forthem, e.g., a local undo operation. The method developed provides alogically based declarative way of implementing simple dialoguesystems that is easy to port to new domains.

pThis article seeks to demonstrate how a dialogue between literary theorist and psychoanalyst François Flahault and Kyoto School philosopher Nishida Kitarō can be mutually beneficial in the service of building an account of good and evil that contributes to discourses in ethics. Although Flahault and Nishida share a similar commitment to disrupt the dichotomy between good and evil in the effort to liberate subjectivity, they diverge in terms of how their accounts relate subjectivity to the processes of social history. As (...) this article will discuss, the significance of their divergence, however, elucidates the strengths and limits of their approaches to the victim-victimizer duality that is implied within the problem of good and evil. Such a divergence also points to a potential space of synthesis and mutual enrichment as well: namely, on the side of championing Nishida’s contradictory logic and Flahault’s emphasis on the contextual demands and problems of social history. That is to say, within the dialogical encounter between Flahault and Nishida, as the present article suggests, is the potentiality to develop a universal conception of the common good that is contradictorily linked to the subjective interior where such provides a critical resource for a deeper engagement with the victim-victimizer duality./p. (shrink)

Amphiboly has been widely recognized, starting from the time of Aristotle, as an informal fallacy arising from grammatical ambiguity. This paper applies the profiles of dialogue tool to the fallacy of amphiboly, providing a five-step evidence-based procedure whereby a syntactically ambiguous sentence uttered in a natural language text can be evaluated as committing a fallacy of amphiboly. A user applies the tool to a natural language text by comparing a descriptive graph, representing how the argumentation actually went, to a normative (...) graph, representing how the argumentation should ideally have proceeded. (shrink)

There is a broad debate in contemporary philosophy of logic on the informativeness of proofs. In this context, informative proofs are demonstrations whose premises do not include the content of the conclusion. D’Agostino and Floridi (Synthese 167(2):271–315, 2009) claimed that proofs are informative if they use _virtual information_. In their terminology, this is the data carried by _dischargeable hypotheses_, assumptions entertained during proof and eliminated before concluding. Although these authors capture several cases of informative demonstrations, they do not explain (...) the nature of virtual information. Why does the use of dischargeable hypotheses increase the informativeness of a demonstration? Following a Kantian inspiration, D’Agostino and Floridi claim that virtual information adds a synthetic feature to our proofs. However, this appeal to Kantianism is misleading: for Kant, mathematics is synthetic because it requires the construction of concepts in pure intuition. On the other hand, the entertainment of provisional hypotheses does not seem to involve the construction of figures in (transcendental) imagination. Exploring a _dialogical_ characterization of logic, I suggest that virtual information results from the dynamics between a reasoner and her audience. When a reasoner provisionally assumes _P_, she enacts potential interlocutors who commit to _P_. Thus, “virtual information” denotes the content of some assumptions of the possible audience of a demonstration. This process of departing from one’s original premises to embrace the suppositions of other people is informative, but it is not synthetic: in this way, the reasoner does not entertain intuitions but only needs to reason through the conceptual content of other people’s premises. (shrink)

The notion of dialogue is foundational for both Juri Lotman and Mikhail Bakhtin. It is also central in Charles S. Peirce’s semeiotics and logic. While there are several scholarly comparisons of Bakhtin’s and Lotman’s dialogisms, these have yet to be compared with Peirce’s semeiotic dialogues. This article takes tentative steps toward a comparative study of dialogue in Peirce, Lotman, and Bakhtin. Peirce’s understanding of dialogue is explicated, and compared with both Lotman’s as well as Bakhtin’s conceptions. Lotman saw dialogue (...) as the basic meaning-making mechanism in the semiosphere. The benefits and shortcomings of reconceptualizing the semiosphere on the basis of Peircean and Bakhtinian dialogues are weighed. The aim is to explore methodological alternatives in semiotics, not to challenge Lotman’s initial model. It is claimed that the semiosphere qua model operating with Bakhtinian dialogues is narrower in scope than Lotman’s original conception, while the semiosphere qua model operating with Peircean dialogues appears to be broader in scope. It is concluded that the choice between alternative dialogical foundations must be informed by attentiveness to their differences, and should be motivated by the researcher’s goals and theoretical commitments. (shrink)

Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss some ways in which dialectical models can be put to computational use. In particular, we consider means of facilitating human-computer debate, means of catering for a wider range of dialogue types than purely debate and means of providing dialectical support for group dialogues. We also suggest how the computational use of dialectical theories may help to illuminate research issues in the field of dialectic itself.

Review of "Quantum Dialogue - The Making of a Revolution" by Mara Beller.

This paper tackles foundational issues regarding the justification of logical rules. It is argued that standard accounts from both proof-theoretical and semantical points of view do not su ffi ce to account for the justification of basic logical rules. By way of response, an analysis of logical inference as acts taking place in dialogical situations is provided. In turn, this makes way for an internal justification of logical rules at the termination of dialogue, that can be formalized in terms of (...) co-constructive logic for proof and refutation [author reference omitted]. (shrink)

The paper examines the Dialogue De pace fidei written by Nicolaus Cusanus in 1453 to settle disputes arising from events that triggered religious unrest, such as the fall of Constantinople in May 1453, the invasion and massacre of the Turks led by Sultan Mehmed II and the defeat of the Christians. Following the disintegration of medieval Christianity, Cusanus, instead of promoting a crusade, as Cardinal Bessarione did, proposed a more suitable way to make the major exponents of different religions interact (...) in a fruitful dialogue, hoping for the peace of a single universal faith. The arguments through which Cusanus claimed the concept of a concordance and pacification of the faith reveal the originality and topicality of the message communicated by the humanist, founded on the doctrine of peace in the faith, overcoming inter-confessional barriers and religious divergences.The author contrasts the divergences, massacres and wars with a doctrinal comparison among different religions through dialogue. The paper invites reflection upon the religious struggles that still spread discord in the world. (shrink)

Basing on ideas proposed by Jean Baudrillard, Slavoj Žižek, Emmanuel Levinas, and Jürgen Habermas, this paper suggests combining the concept of horizontal relationships between people with the idea of the vertical dialogue with the transcendental, the spirit. The logic of ultimate mutuality brings us closer to the idea of dialogue with the transcendental; the Other as the spirit appears as a third party in the intersubjective space of dialogue. Thus intersubjectivity may become a condition of implementing human spirituality.

A variety of theoretical positions are emerging to explain the judicial process from such perspectives as hermeneutics, semiotics, critical theory and argumentation/rhetoric. They ask such questions as these: What is the source of judicial authority? How do judges arrive at their decisions? By what logic are decisions to be tested? In this essay I argue that a focus on decisions and their justifications alone masks the broader process in which judges, along with all the other relevant groups, engage in (...) a continuing and evolving dialogue to structure their normative universe through the complementary processes of dialectic and rhetoric. Contemporary concepts of argumentation can serve to analyze this process critically. (shrink)