New Dialectical Rules ForAmbiguity
نویسندگان
چکیده
A set of ten rules is proposed for dealing with problems of ambiguity when interpreting a text of argumentative discourse. The rules are based on Grice's pragmatic rules for a collaborative conversation and on principles and maxims used to deal with ambiguity in interpreting legal and religious writings. The rules are meant to be applied to a given argument used in a given case, and to resolve (or at least deal with) an ambiguity in the argument (or affecting the argument) by using evidence derived from the text and context of dialogue surrounding the argument in the case.
منابع مشابه
Douglas N . Walton University of Winnipeg Fabrizio Macagno Catholic University of Milan Types of Dialogue , Dialectical Relevance and
Using tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples of everyday conversational argumentation where determination of relevance and irrelevance can be assisted by means of adopting a new dialectical approach. According to the new dialectical theory, dialogue types are normative frameworks with specific goals and rules that can be applied to convers...
متن کاملDefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions
Assumptions are often not considered to be definitely true, but only as prima facie justified. When an assumption is prima facie justified, there can for instance be a reason against it, by which the assumption is not actually justified. The assumption is then said to be defeated. This requires a revision of the standard conception of logical interpretation of sets of assumptions in terms of th...
متن کاملFormal Dialectical systems and Their Uses in the Study of Argumentation
In this paper we offer an explanation of how formal dialectical systems are useful for modeling important aspects of argumentation, like dealing with fallacies. This aim is accomplished by presenting a brief outline of the main characteristics and rules of two representative systems, one of the Hamblin type and one of the Lorenzen type. We use these two systems to discuss aspects of argumentati...
متن کاملComputational Dialectics for Arguing Agents
In this paper, we extract its computational content from Hegelian Marxist dialectics and consider the utilization in agents’ world. This is a novel approach to conflict resolution, cooperation, reconciliation, negotiation and so on that are main concerns in agent-oriented computing. We first examine two approaches to static dialectical logics: the dialectical logics DL and DM by Routley and Mey...
متن کاملAn Empirical Evaluation of Argumentation in Explaining Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering
In this paper we answer empirically the following research question: “Are dialectical explanation methods more effective than one-shot explanation methods for Intersection of Closed Repairs inconsistency tolerant semantics in existential rules knowledge bases?” We ran two experiments with 84 and respectively 38 participants and showed that under certain conditions dialectical approaches are sig...
متن کامل