On How to Be a Dialogician

Rahman, Shahid; Keiff, Laurent

doi:10.1007/1-4020-3167-x_17

Cited by 56 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other papers have been collected more recently in Lorenz (2008Lorenz ( , 2010aLorenz ( , 2010b. A detailed account of recent developments can be found in Rahman and Keiff (2005) and Keiff (2009). For the underlying metalogic see Clerbout (2013Clerbout ( , 2014.…”

Section: Previous Movementioning

confidence: 99%

Um quadro dialógico para ficções como objetos hipotéticos

Rahman¹,

Redmond²

2015

Filosofia Unisinos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work on the development of a dialogical approach to the logic of fi ction stresses the notion of existence as choice. Moreover, this approach to existence has been combined with the notion of ontological dependence as deployed by A. Thomasson's artifactual theory of fi ction. In order to implement such a combination within the dialogical frame several predicates of ontological dependence have been defi ned. However, the defi nition of such predicates seems to lean on a model-theoretic semantics for modal logic after all. The main aim of the present paper is to set a dialogical frame for the study of fi ctions in the context of the dialogical approach of CTT recently developed by S. Rahman and N. Clerbout where a fully-interpreted language is unfolded. We will herewith develop the idea that in such a setting fi ctional entities are understood as hypothetical objects, that is, objects (functions) the existence of which is dependent upon one or more hypotheses that restrict the scope of choices available. We will fi nish the paper by suggesting that this provides both a natural and genuinely dialogical way to understand R. Frigg's take on scientifi c models as fi ctions and a new perspective on Thomasson's notion of generic ontological dependence.Keywords: fi ction, dialogues, dialogical logic, hypothetical objects, scientifi c models. ResumoTrabalhos recentes sobre o desenvolvimento de uma abordagem dialógica para a lógica da fi cção enfatizam a noção de existência como escolha. Além disso, 1 The present work is a result of the project Fondecyt Regular No. 1141260 (Principal Investigator: Juan Redmond). We thank the CONICYT (Chile) for fostering the preparation of this article and Nicolas Clerbout (University of Valparaíso, Convenio de Desempeño CDHACS, Instituto de Filosofía), for fruitful discussions during and after the meetings that took place within the frame of the project. IntroductionA brief examination of the most recent literature in logic will make it apparent that a host of research in this area is devoted to the study of the interface between games, logic and epistemology. These studies provide the basis of ongoing enquiries into the history and philosophy of logic, going from the Indian, the Greek, the Arabic, the Obligationes of the Middle Ages to the most contemporary developments in the fields of theoretical computer science, computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, social sciences and legal reasoning. In fact, a dynamic turn, as J. v. Benthem puts it, is taking place where the epistemic aspects of inference are linked with game theoretical approaches to meaning 4 . In regard to the birth of this turn, it could be placed around the 1960s, when P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz developed dialogical logic -inspired by Wittgenstein's language games and mathematical game theory -and when some time later Hintikka (1962Hintikka ( , 1973 combined game-theoretical semantics with epistemic (modal) logic 5 . However, while Hintikka's approach is based on a model theoretic semantics, ...

show abstract

Section: Previous Movementioning

confidence: 99%

Um quadro dialógico para ficções como objetos hipotéticos

Rahman¹,

Redmond²

2015

Filosofia Unisinos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, in the Felscher tradition such bounds are absent, with the result that dialogues may be infinite. For more information on the Lille tradition, see [16,31].…”

Section: Dialogical Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Curious Dialogical Logic and its Composition Problem

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract. 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 N of dialogue rules which is well-justified from the dialogical point of view, but whose set N of dialogically valid formulas is both non-trivial and non-standard. We prove that the composition problem for N can be solved directly, and introduce a tableaux system for N.

show abstract

“…The point is that in relation to the predicate that expresses the universal the bearer of the expression this object is undistinguishable from the bearer of the expression that object. This could be expressed by a rule that allows to assert the equality of two terms (this 17 Notice that with the expression summarizing, we translate literally the Sanskrit expression sam . graha, that conveys the idea of bringing together several distinct elements.…”

Section: The Summarizing Viewpoint (Sam Graha-naya)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Context-Sensitivity in Jain Philosophy: A Dialogical Study of Siddharṣigaṇi’s Commentary on the Handbook of Logic

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Jain philosophy of logicIn 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. In nowadays terms, it would be quite natural to understand such a theory from a modal perspective. But the conceptions of Jain philosophers do not seem to meet modern standard (and normal) modal logic. The main reason is that viewpoint bounded epistemic operators are not part of the object language. Indeed, in the Jain framework embedding of epistemic operators, that allows travelling between viewpoints, is not possible. More precisely, viewpoint-knowledge is an implicit epistemic context that bounds the assertion of statements, not an operator that extends the set of logical constants. Moreover, each viewpoint represents a type of epistemic access to objects of the domain of discourse. This (epistemic) type defines a precise frame of the way assertions involving descriptions of those objects are to be justified. The descriptions are determined by the corresponding epistemic type. That UMR 8163

show abstract

On How to Be a Dialogician

Cited by 56 publications

References 24 publications

Um quadro dialógico para ficções como objetos hipotéticos

Um quadro dialógico para ficções como objetos hipotéticos

A Curious Dialogical Logic and its Composition Problem

Context-Sensitivity in Jain Philosophy: A Dialogical Study of Siddharṣigaṇi’s Commentary on the Handbook of Logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About