David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17 - 49 (2001)
[Wilfrid Hodges] During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather than in any true conceptual analysis. In fact some of the standard explanations of logical notions in terms of competitive games simply don't work. /// [Erik C. W. Krabbe] In an attempt to redeem the Lorenzen-type dialogues from their detractors, it is perhaps best first to provide a survey of the various benefits these dialogues have been supposed to yield. This will be done in Section I. It will not be possible, within the confines of this paper, to scrutinize them all, but in Section II we shall delve deeper into the capacity of this type of dialogue to yield a model for the immanent criticism of philosophical positions. Section III will extend the concept of a dialogue in such a way as to conform better with our intuitive conceptions of what a rational discussion of a position should contain. This will be followed up by a concept of 'winning a dialogue' that takes position midway between the old conception of 'winning one play' and that of the full-fledged presentation of a winning strategy (a proof). Concepts of 'rational discussion' are thus shown to be, plausibly, more fundamental than those of proof. In Section IV, I shall discuss the specific problems about dialogical foundations put forward by Wilfrid Hodges.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Erik C. W. Krabbe (1985). Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules. Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
Erick C. W. Krabbe (1984). Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules. Synthese 58 (2):295 - 328.
Wilfrid Hodges (2001). Dialogue Foundations: A Sceptical Look: Wilfrid Hodges. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):17–32.
C. G. Fermüller (2008). Dialogue Games for Many-Valued Logics — an Overview. Studia Logica 90 (1):43 - 68.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (2001). Dialogue Foundations: Dialogue Logic Revisited: Erik C. W. Krabbe. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):33–49.
Paul Piwek (2007). Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):403-421.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (1978). The Adequacy of Material Dialogue-Games. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19 (3):321-330.
Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons (2002). Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues Between Autonomous Agents. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (3):315-334.
Wilfrid Hodges (1977). Logic. Penguin.
Lauri Carlson (1994). Logic for Dialogue Games. Synthese 99 (3):377 - 415.
Tasos Kazepides (2012). Education as Dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (9):913-925.
T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard & P. H. Leng (2000). A Method for the Computational Modelling of Dialectical Argument with Dialogue Games. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):233-254.
Alain Lecomte & Myriam Quatrini (2011). Figures of Dialogue: A View From Ludics. Synthese 183 (S1):59-85.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads9 ( #165,803 of 1,102,060 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,621 of 1,102,060 )
How can I increase my downloads?