Evaluating Dialectical Structures.

This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework repres...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Philosophical Logic Vol. 38; no. 3; pp. 283 - 313
Autor principal: Betz, Gregor
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=38798526&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 38798526
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00223611
        JPH
      jtl: Journal of Philosophical Logic
      issn: 00223611
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2009
      vid: 38
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        38798526
        10.1007/s10992-008-9091-5
      ppf: 283
      ppct: 30
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 567KB
      tig:
        atl: Evaluating Dialectical Structures.
      aug:
        au: Betz, Gregor
        affil: Institute of Philosophy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin Germany
      su:
        Relational dialectics theory
        Debate
        Question (Logic)
        Structural frames
        Academic dissertations
        Reasoning
        Psychology
      sug:
        subj:
          Relational dialectics theory
          Debate
          Question (Logic)
          Structural frames
          Academic dissertations
          Reasoning
          Psychology
      keyword:
        Argumentation
        Argumentation framework
        Burden of proof
        Defeasible reasoning
        Dialectics
        Non monotonic reasoning
        Non-monotonic reasoning
      ab: This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework represents an (argument-based) approach to non-monotonic, or defeasible reasoning. Debates are analysed as dialectical structures, i.e. argumentation systems with an attack- as well as a support-relationship. The recursive status assignment over the arguments is conditionalised on proponents in a debate. The problem of multiple status assignments arising on circular structures is solved by showing that uniqueness can be guaranteed qua reconstruction of a debate. The notion of burden of proof as well as other discursive aims rational proponents pursue in a debate is defined within the framework.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Journal of Philosophical Logic is a copyright of Springer, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Journal of Philosophical Logic
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2009
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N