Dialogue Protocols for Formal Fallacies

Magdalena Kacprzak Bialystok University of Technology ; Olena Yaskorska Polish Academy of Sciences

Abstract

This paper presents a dialogue system called Lorenzen–Hamblin Natural Dialogue (LHND), in which participants can commit formal fallacies and have a method of both identifying and withdrawing formal fallacies. It therefore provides a tool for the dialectical evaluation of force of argument when players advance reasons which are deductively incorrect. The system is inspired by Hamblin’s formal dialectic and Lorenzen’s dialogical logic. It offers uniform protocols for Hamblin’s and Lorenzen’s dialogues and adds a protocol for embedding them. This unification required a reformulation of the original description of Lorenzen’s system to distinguish “between different stances that a person might take in the discussion”, as suggested by Hodges. The LHND system is compared to Walton and Krabbe’s Complex Persuasion Dialogue using an example of a dialogue.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2014-08-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-014-9324-4
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. College Composition and Communication
Also cites 16 works outside this index ↓
  1. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation
  2. Budzynska, K. 2013. Circularity in ethotic structures. Synthese 190(15): 3185–3207.
    Synthese  
  3. Teamwork in multi-agent systems: A formal approach
  4. Kacprzak, M., W. Kosinski, and K. Wegrzyn-Wolska. 2013. Diversity of opinion evaluated by ordered fuzzy numbe…
  5. Mackenzie, J. 1991. On teaching critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory 23: 56–78.
    Educational Philosophy and Theory  
  6. Mackenzie, J. 2014. From speech acts to semantics. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36(49)
  7. Massey, G.J. 1981. The fallacy behind fallacies. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 489–500.
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy  
  8. Parsons, S., P. McBurney, and M. Wooldridge. 2004. The mechanics of some formal inter-agent dialogues. In Adv…
  9. Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computa…
    Journal of Logic and Computation  
  10. Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188.
    The Knowledge Engineering Review  
  11. Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1…
    Argument & Computation  
  12. Reed, C., and S. Wells. 2007. Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent System…
  13. Skowron, A., J. Stepaniuk, A. Jankowski, J.G. Bazan, and R.W. Swiniarski. 2012. Rough set based reasoning abo…
    Fundamenta Informaticae  
  14. Sorensen, R.A. 1991. ‘P, Therefore, P’ without circularity. Journal of Philosophy 88(5): 245–266.
    Journal of Philosophy  
  15. Wells, S., and C. Reed. 2012. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal …
    Journal of Applied Logic  
  16. Yaskorska, O., K. Budzynska, and M. Kacprzak. 2013. Proving propositional tautologies in a natural dialogue. …
    Fundamenta Informaticae