Abstract
This note comments on the paper ‘Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies’ by Kacprzak and Yaskorska (this issue). Points discussed include the use of the notions of ‘claiming’, ‘conceding’ and ‘commitment’, and the role of Lorenzen dialogues as a device for checking whether a proposition is a tautology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brandom, Robert B. 2008. Between saying and doing: Towards an analytic pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frege, Gottlob. 1906. Über die Grundlagen der Geometrie. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematikervereinigung 15: 293–309, 377–403, 423–430.
Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hodges, Wilfrid. 2013. Logic and games. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu, February 2013.
Kacprzak, Magdalena, and Olena Yaskorska. Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies (this issue).
Lorenzen, P. 1961. Ein dialogisches Konstruktivitätskriterium. Infinitistic methods, Polish Academy of Sciences, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, pp. 193–200.
Parsons, Simon, Michael Wooldridge, and Leila Amgoud. 2003. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 347–376.
Yaskorska, Olena, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Magdalena Kacprzak. 2013. Proving propositional tautologies in a natural dialogue. Fundamenta Informaticae 128: 239–253.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This comment refers to the article available at doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9324-4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hodges, W. Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies: A reply to Kacprzak and Yaskorska. Argumentation 28, 371–377 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9326-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9326-2