Switch to: References

Citations of:

Four dialogue systems

Studia Logica 49 (4):567 - 583 (1990)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Computational Agents as a Test-Bed to Study the Philosophical Dialogue Model "DE": A Development of Mackenzie's DC.Tangming Yuan, David Moore & Alec Grierson - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (3):263-284.
    This paper reports research concerning a suitable dialogue model for human computer debate. In particular, we consider the adoption of Moore's (1993) utilization of Mackenzie's (1979) game DC, means of using computational agents as the test-bed to facilitate evaluation of the proposed model, and means of using the evaluation results as motivation to further develop a dialogue model, which can prevent fallacious argument and common errors. It is anticipated that this work will contribute toward the development of human computer dialogue, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Computational Uses of Philosophical Dialogue Theories.David Moore & Dave Hobbes - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (2).
    The research discussed in this paper concerns an investigation of logical dialogue games as a vehicle for enhanced human-computer communication. The need for a dialogue capability in computer systems is argued, and a prima facie case made for dialogue games, in particular Mackenzie's "DC", as a suitable dialogue model. Empirical work concerning DC is outlined, and strategies for adoption by the computer are presented. A user interface, software architecture and conceptualised example are discussed. The hope is that the paper will (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation.Robert B. Ricco & Anthony Nelson Sierra - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):37-61.
    The present study explored several dispositional factors associated with individual differences in lay adult’s interpretation of when an arguer is, or is not, committed to a statement. College students were presented with several two-person arguments in which the proponent of a thesis conceded a key point in the last turn. Participants were then asked to indicate the extent to which that concession implied a change in the proponent’s attitude toward any of the previous statements in the argument. Participants designated as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Ambiguity in argument.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.
    The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities . However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Non-cooperation in dialogue logic.Dov Gabbay & John Woods - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):161 - 186.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Multimodal Argument as Dialogue.Jan Albert van Laar - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (4):457-476.
    According to a dialectical approach to argumentation, a single argument can be seen as a dialogical "Why? Because!" sequence. Does this also apply to multimodal arguments? This paper focuses on multimodal arguments with a predominantly visual character and shows that dialogues are helpful for identifying and reconstructing arguments in multimodal communication. To include nonverbal arguments in dialectical argumentation theory, it is proposed to regard dialogue as mode-fluid. The account of multimodal argument as dialogue will be compared with Champagne and Pietarinen’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • A general framework for sound assumption-based argumentation dialogues.Xiuyi Fan & Francesca Toni - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence 216 (C):20-54.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Christopher Winch on the Representational Theory of Language and its Pedagogic Relevance.Jim Mackenzie - 2001 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 33 (1):35-56.
    In his recent paper, Winch attacks a group of theories he calls cognitivism. These theories agree in holding that ‘the ability to think, both consciously and subconsciously, amounts to an ability to internally manipulate symbolic representations of that which we think about.The relevance of this attack to education is that ‘Cognitivism’ supplies plausible‐looking reasons for thinking that learning can take place without instruction, practice, memorisation or training and its prestige as a theory of learning devalues those activities within education.Its rejection (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • In the Beginning was Game Semantics?Giorgi Japaridze - 2009 - In Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen & Tero Tulenheimo (eds.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag. pp. 249--350.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • One-sided arguments.Jan Albert Van Laar - 2007 - Synthese 154 (2):307-327.
    When is an argument to be called one-sided? When is putting forward such an argument fallacious? How can we develop a model for critical discussion, such that a fallaciously one-sided argument corresponds to a violation of a discussion rule? These issues are dealt with within ‘the limits of the dialogue model of argument’ by specifying a type of persuasion dialogue in which an arguer can offer complex arguments to anticipate particular responses by a critic.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Proof and Dialogue in Aristotle.Roderic A. Girle - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):289-316.
    Jan Łukasiewicz’s analysis of Aristotle’s syllogism drew attention to the nature of syllogisms as conditionals rather than premise-conclusion arguments. His further idea that syllogisms should be understood as theorems of an axiom system seems a step too far for many logicians. But there is evidence to suggest that Aristotle’s syllogism was to regularise some of the steps made in ‘dialogue games.’ This way of seeing the syllogism is explored in the framework of modern formal dialogue systems. A modern formal syllogistic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Theoretical foundations for illocutionary structure parsing1.Katarzyna Budzynska, Mathilde Janier, Chris Reed & Patrick Saint-Dizier - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):91-108.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue.S. Wells & C. A. Reed - 2012 - Journal of Applied Logic 10 (4):309-329.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Sankey's Personal Understanding.Jim Mackenzie - 2011 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (9):943-959.
    This paper takes issue with Derek Sankey's: ‘Minds, Brains, and Differences in Personal Understanding’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39 (2007), pp. 543–558 on the questions of the post-pedagogical classroom and the forms of knowledge. I then try to show that a theory of meaning framed in terms of normative pragmatics is better able than the brain science Sankey relies on to account for the concept of a person or self; the central educational concept of personal understanding; the relation between being (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
    This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation.Henry Prakken - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):187-219.
    This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamicdisputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at differentstages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Firsta general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for suchlogics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols fordynamic disputes, after which soundness and fairness properties are formulated for such protocols relative to dialectical proof theories. It then turns out that certaintypes of protocols that are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
    Use of argumentation methods applied to legal reasoning is a relatively new field of study. The book provides a survey of the leading problems, and outlines how future research using argumentation-based methods show great promise of leading to useful solutions. The problems studied include not only these of argument evaluation and argument invention, but also analysis of specific kinds of evidence commonly used in law, like witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence and character evidence. New tools for analyzing these kinds (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Theoretical foundations for illocutionary structure parsing.Floriana Grasso, Floris Bex & Nancy Green - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):91-108.
    Illocutionary structure in real language use is intricate and complex, and nowhere more so than in argument and debate. Identifying this structure without any theoretical scaffolding is extremely challenging even for humans. New work in Inference Anchoring Theory has provided significant advances in such scaffolding which are helping to allow the analytical challenges of argumentation structure to be tackled. This paper demonstrates how these advances can also pave the way to automated and semi-automated research in understanding the structure of natural (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Reed & Walton.Leo Groarke - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • From Speech Acts to Semantics.Jim Mackenzie - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):121-142.
    Frege introduced the notion of pragmatic force as what distinguishes statements from questions. This distinction was elaborated by Wittgenstein in his later works, and systematised as an account of different kinds of speech acts in formal dialogue theory by Hamblin. It lies at the heart of the inferential semantics more recently developed by Brandom. The present paper attempts to sketch some of the relations between these developments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy.Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen & Tero Tulenheimo (eds.) - 2009 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag.
    This volume presents mathematical game theory as an interface between logic and philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Lakatos-style collaborative mathematics through dialectical, structured and abstract argumentation.Alison Pease, John Lawrence, Katarzyna Budzynska, Joseph Corneli & Chris Reed - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence 246 (C):181-219.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Advice on the Logic of Argument.John Woods - 2013 - Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso 1:7-34.
    Since its modern inception in the early 1970s, informal logic has placed a special emphasis on the analysis of fallacies and argumentative dialogue schemes. Concurrent developments in speech communication circles exhibit a like concentration on the dialectical character of argument.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation.Mark Snaith, Alison Pease, John Lawrence, Barbara Konat, Mathilde Janier, Rory Duthie, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):137-160.
    The Argument Web is maturing as both a platform built upon a synthesis of many contemporary theories of argumentation in philosophy and also as an ecosystem in which various applications and application components are contributed by different research groups around the world. It already hosts the largest publicly accessible corpora of argumentation and has the largest number of interoperable and cross compatible tools for the analysis, navigation and evaluation of arguments across a broad range of domains, languages and activity types. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Applications of Argumentation Schemes.Chris Reed & Doug Walton - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Argument Schemes from the Point of View of Hamblin’s Dialectic.Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):344-366.
    This paper aims at a normative account of non-deductive argumentation schemes in the spirit of Hamblin’s dialectical philosophy. First, three principles are presented that characterize Hamblin’s dialectical stance. Second, argumentation schemes, which have hardly been examined in Hamblin’s book Fallacies, shall be dealt with by applying these principles, taking an argumentation scheme from authority as the leading example. Third, a formal dialectical system, along the lines indicated by Hamblin, shall be developed that includes norms for using argumentation schemes and norms (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Argumentative Bluff in Eristic Discussion: An Analysis and Evaluation.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):383-398.
    How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product.Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Metadialogues: Krabbe’s Immanent Dialectic. [REVIEW]Peter Houtlosser & Jan Albert van Laar - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):205-208.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies.Douglas Walton - 2000 - Synthese 123 (3):327-346.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Canonical formulas for k4. part I: Basic results.Michael Zakharyaschev - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (4):1377-1402.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • Contexts of Begging the Question.Jim Mackenzie - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):227-240.
    In this paper a dialogical account of begging the question is applied to various contexts which are not obviously dialogues: - reading prose, working through a deductive system, presenting a legal case, and thinking to oneself. The account is then compared with that in chapter eight of D. Walton'sBegging the Question (New York; Greenwood, 1991).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Is there a burden of questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
    In some recent cases in Anglo-American law juries ruled contrary to an expert's testimony even though that testimony was never challenged, contradicted or questioned in the trial. These cases are shown to raise some theoretical questions about formal dialogue systems in computational dialectical systems for legal argumentation of the kind recently surveyed by Bench-Capon (1997) and Hage (2000) in this journal. In such systems, there is a burden of proof, meaning that if the respondent questions an argument, the proponent is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations