Search

This paper argues that adopting a particular dialogical account of logical consequence quite directly gives rise to an interesting form of logical pluralism, the form of pluralism in question arising out of the requirement that deductive proofs be explanatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I review the new book by C. D. Novaes, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction: Historical, Cognitive, and Philosophical Perspectives on Reasoning (2020). I reconstruct the main themes and arguments presented in the work and critically assess its results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Barth-Krabbe-Hintikka-Hintikka Problem, independently raised by Barth and Krabbe (From axiom to dialogue: a philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1982) and Hintikka and Hintikka (The sign of three: Peirce, Dupin, Holmes. In: Eco U, Sebeok TA (eds) Sherlock Holmes confronts modern logic: Toward a theory of information-seeking through questioning. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1983), is the problem of characterizing the strategic reasoning of the players of dialogical logic and game-theoretic semantics games from rational preferences rather than rules. We solve the problem by providing a set of preferences for players with bounded rationality and specifying strategic inferences from those preferences, for a variant of logical dialogues. This solution is generalized to both game-theoretic semantics and orthodox dialogical logic (classical and intuitionistic). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we introduce a game semantics for System P, one of the most studied axiomatic systems for non-monotonic reasoning, conditional logic and belief revision. We prove soundness and completeness of the game semantics with respect to the rules of System P, and show that an inference is valid with respect to the game semantics if and only if it is valid with respect to the standard order semantics of System P. Combining these two results leads to a new completeness proof for System P with respect to its order semantics. Our approach allows us to construct for every inference either a concrete proof of the inference from the rules in System P or a countermodel in the order semantics. Our results rely on the notion of a witnessing set for an inference, whose existence is a concise, necessary and sufficient condition for validity of an inferences in System P. We also introduce an infinitary variant of System P and use the game semantics to show its completeness for the restricted class of well-founded orders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, the number of human to application system interactions is dramatically increasing. For instance, citizens interact with the help of the internet to organize meetings spontaneously. Furthermore, standards such as Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) and the Decision Modeling Notation (DMN) allow the creation of graphical models to document the (interaction) processes. Moreover, simulations and automations can be set up to encounter new technical challenges. Smart Cities aim at enabling their citizens to use these digital services. However, looking beyond technology, there is still a significant lack of interaction and support between “normal” citizens and the public administration. This article introduces an approach, which describes the design of enhanced interactional applications for decision support in Smart Cities based on Dialogical Logic process patterns. The authors demonstrate the approach with the help of a use case concerning a budgeting scenario as well as a summary and outlook on further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History & Foundations of Science is the property of Universidad del Pais Vasco, Servicio Editorial and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Dialogue semantics for logic are two-player logic games between a Proponent who puts forward a logical formula φ as valid or true and an Opponent who disputes this. An advantage of the dialogical approach is that it is a uniform framework from which different logics can be obtained through only small variations of the basic rules. We introduce the composition problem for dialogue games as the problem of resolving, for a set S of rules for dialogue games, whether the set of S-dialogically valid formulas is closed under modus ponens. Solving the composition problem is fundamental for the dialogical approach to logic; despite its simplicity, it often requires an indirect solution with the help of significant logical machinery such as cut-elimination. Direct solutions to the composition problem can, however, sometimes be had. As an example, we give a set of dialogue rules which is well-justified from the dialogical point of view, but whose set of dialogically valid formulas is both non-trivial and non-standard. We prove that the composition problem for can be solved directly, and introduce a tableaux system for . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In classical India, Jain philosophers developed a theory of viewpoints ( naya-vāda) according to which any statement is always performed within and dependent upon a given epistemic perspective or viewpoint. The Jainas furnished this epistemology with an (epistemic) theory of disputation that takes into account the viewpoint in which the main thesis has been stated. The main aim of our paper is to delve into the Jain notion of viewpoint-contextualisation and to develop the elements of a suitable logical system that should offer a reconstruction of the Jainas' epistemic theory of disputation. A crucial step of our project is to approach the Jain theory of disputation with the help of a theory of meaning for logical constants based on argumentative practices called dialogical logic. Since in the dialogical framework the meaning of the logical constants is given by the norms or rules for their use in a debate, it provides a meaning theory closer to the Jain context-sensitive disputation theory than the main-stream formal model-theoretic semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present paper is to show that, from the dialogical point of view, the harmony of the inference rules for constructive logic as the ones provided by the identity rules of Constructive Type Theory is the consequence of a more fundamental level of meaning characterized by the independence of players. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]