Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction
نویسندگان
چکیده
Chinese ways of dealing with seeming contradictions result in a dialectical or compromise approach— retaining basic elements of opposing perspectives by seeking a “middle way.” European-American ways, on the other hand, deriving from a lay version of Aristotelian logic, result in a differentiation model that polarizes contradictory perspectives in an effort to determine which fact or position is correct. Empirical studies showed that dialectical thinking is a form of folk wisdom in Chinese culture: Chinese preferred dialectical proverbs containing seeming contradictions more than did Americans. Chinese were also found to prefer dialectical resolutions to social conflicts, and to prefer dialectical arguments over classical Western logical arguments. Furthermore, when two apparently contradictory propositions were presented, Americans polarized their views and Chinese were moderately accepting of both propositions. Origins of these cultural differences and their implications for human reasoning in general are discussed.
منابع مشابه
KIERKEGAARD AND THE ASH‘ARITES ON REASON AND THEOLOGY
Neither the Ash‘arites nor Kierkegaard’s systems of theology are anti-rational, for Kierkegaard regards the contradiction present in the object of faith as absolute rather than logical, suggesting thereby the existential dialectics for understanding this contradiction instead of resolving it. The Ash‘arites also hold that one can understand the existence of God through absolute reason, or reaso...
متن کاملThe Dialectics of Case Comparison: a Formal Reconstruction
This paper is about the dialectics of case comparison as it unfolds in legal case-based reasoning, and its aim is to provide a representation of the phenomenon in formal terms. This is done by formalising argument moves in case comparison concisely in argument schemes, and specifying attack relations between the arguments and their corresponding counterarguments. A feature that is new in resear...
متن کاملProcess and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reasoning
This paper investigates the appropriateness of formal dialectics as a basis for non-monotonic and defeasible reasoning that takes computational limits seriously. Rules that can come into conflict should be regarded as policies, which are inputs to deliberative processes. Dialectical protocols are appropriate for such deliberations when resources are bounded and search is serial. AI, it is claim...
متن کاملGeographic dialectics ?
As radical geography, inflected by Marx, has transformed into critical geography, influenced by poststructuralism and feminism, dialectical reasoning has come under attack from some poststructural geographers. Their construction of dialectics as inconsistent with poststructural thinking, difference, and assemblages is based, however, on a Hegelian conception of the dialectic. This Hegelian imag...
متن کاملDefeasible Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach Towards Defeasible Argumentation
Defeasible argumentation is concerned with studying plausible but, at the same time, fallible patterns of reasoning. Because plausible arguments can easily be developed, and not all of them can be in force at the same time, the main thrust of the theory is in deriving sound principles for adjudicating among conflicting lines of argumentation. In this paper, we propose to resolve such conflicts ...
متن کامل