Skip to main content

Paraconsistency And Dialogue Logic Critical Examination And Further Explorations

Abstract

The first part of this paper presents asympathetic and critical examination of the approachof Shahid Rahman and Walter Carnielli, as presented intheir paper “The Dialogical Approach toParaconsistency”. In the second part, possibleextensions are presented and evaluated: (a) top-downanalysis of a dialogue situation versus bottom-up, (b)the specific role of ambiguities and how to deal withthem, and (c) the problem of common knowledge andbackground knowledge in dialogues. In the third part,I claim that dialogue logic is the best-suitedinstrument to analyse paradoxes of the Sorites type.All these considerations lead to philosophicallyrelevant observations concerning principles of charityon the one hand, and compactness on the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Barth, E. M. and R. T. P. Wiche: 1986, Problems, Functions and Semantic Roles, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barwise, J. and J. Etchemendy: 1987, The Liar. An Essay in Truth and Circularity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Batens, D.: 1995, ‘Blocks, the Clue to Dynamic Aspects of Logic’, Logique et Analyse 150-152, 285-328.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Batens, D.: 1996, ‘Functioning and Teachings of Adaptive Logics’, in J. van Benthem, F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and F. Veltman (eds), Logic and Argumentation, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 241-54.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Da Costa, N., O. Bueno and S. French: 1998, ‘Is There a Zande Logic?’, History and Philosophy of Logic 19, 41-54.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fagin, R., J. Y. Moses and M. Y. Vardi: 1995, Reasoning about Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Heysse, T.: 1997, ‘Why Logic Doesn't Matter in the Philosophical Study of Argumentation’, Argumentation 11, 211-224.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hintikka, J. and E. Saarinen: 1979, ‘Information-Seeking Dialogues: Some of Their Logical Properties’, Studia Logica 4, 355-363.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson, R. H.: 1999, ‘The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic’, Argumentation 13, 265-274.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Keefe, R. and P. Smith (eds): 1997, Vagueness: A Reader, MIT, London.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Priest, G.: 1987, In Contradiction. A Study of the Transconsistent, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rahman, S.: 1999, ‘On Frege's Nightmare. A Combination of Intuitionistic, Free and Paraconsistent Logics’, in H. Wansing (ed.), Essays on Non-Classical Logic, King's College University Press, London (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rahman, S. and W. Carnielli: 1998, The Dialogical Approach to Paraconsistency, FR 5.1 Philosophie, Universität des Saarlandes, Memo No. 8. Also to appear in D. Krause (ed.): Essays on Paraconsistent Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rahman, S. and J. A. Roetti: 1999, ‘Dual Intuitionistic Paraconsistency without Ontological Commitments’, Presented at the International Congress: Analytic Philosophy at the Turn of the Millennium in Santiago de Compostela (Spanien), 1-4 December 1999.

  15. Rahman, S. and H. Rückert: 1998, Dialogische Logik und Relevanz, FR 5.1 Philosophie, Universität des Saarlandes, Memo No. 27.

  16. Rahman, S. and H. Rückert: 1999, ‘Dialogische Modallogik (für T, B, S4 und S5)’, Logique et Analyse, to appear.

  17. Vanackere, G.: 1997, ‘Ambiguity-Adaptive Logic’, Logique et Analyse 159, 261-280.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Van Bendegem, J. P.: 1985, ‘Dialogue Logic and Problem-Solving’, Philosophica 35, 113-134.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Van Bendegem, J. P.: 1999, ‘Inconsistencies in the History of Mathematics: The Case of Infinitesimals’, Proceedings of a Workshop on the Role of Inconsistencies in the History and Philosophy of the Sciences (to appear).

  20. Van Benthem, J.: 1996, ‘Logic and Argumentation’, in J. Van Benthem, F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and F. Veltman (eds), Logic and Argumentation, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 27-41.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Bendegem, J.P. Paraconsistency And Dialogue Logic Critical Examination And Further Explorations. Synthese 127, 35–55 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010310101727

Download citation

Keywords

  • Specific Role
  • Common Knowledge
  • Critical Examination
  • Dialogical Approach
  • Dialogue Situation