Argumentation, R. Pavilionis's meaning continuum and The Kitchen debate

Problemos 88:95 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this paper, I propose a logical-cognitive approach to argumentation and advocate an idea that argumentation presupposes that intelligent agents engaged in it are cognitively diverse. My approach to argumentation allows drawing distinctions between justification, conviction and persuasion as its different kinds. In justification agents seek to verify weak or strong coherency of an agent’s position in a dialogue. In conviction they argue to modify their partner’s position by means of demonstrating weak or strong cogency of their positions before a ‘rational judge’. My approach to argumentation employs a ‘light’ version of Dung’s abstract argumentative frameworks. It is based on Stich’s idea of agents’ cognitive diversity the epistemic aspect of which is argued to be close to Pavilionis’s conception of meaning continuum. To illustrate my contributions I use an example based on the Kitchen Debate (1959) between Khrushchev and Nixon
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-01-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions.Weinberg, Jonathan M.; Nichols, Shaun & Stich, Stephen
On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions.Alchourrón, Carlos E.; Gärdenfors, Peter & Makinson, David
Rationality in Action.Searle, John R.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
142 ( #26,913 of 49,087 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #22,554 of 49,087 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.