Dialogues, Reasons and Endorsement

  • Shahid Rahman
  • Muhammad Iqbal
  • Youcef Soufi
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 19)


The main aim of the present chapter is to provide a systematic overview on the dialogical framework called Immanent Reasoning. Moreover, we would like to suggest that, if we follow the dialogical insight that reasoning and meaning are constituted during interaction, and we develop this insight in a dialogical framework for Martin-Löf’s Constructive Type Theory, a conception of knowledge emerges that has important links with Walter Young’s (2017) concept of Dialectical Forge in the context of Islamic Law. Moreover, both the dialogical approach and the Dialectical Forge seem to be close to Robert Brandom’s (1994, 2000) inferential pragmatism. The content of the present chapter is basically the same as in Rahman (2019).



I would like to thank the Laboratory STL: UMR-CNRS 8163 and to Leone Gazziero (STL), Laurent Cesalli (Genève), and Claudio Majolino (STL), leaders of the ANR-Project SEMAINO, for fostering the research leading to the present study.

Many thanks to Christina Weiss for her superb editorial work. My thanks also to Zoe McConaughey (STL), Steephen Eckoubili (STL) Clément Lion (STL) and Mohammad Shafiei (U. Shahid Beheshti) for fruitful discussions, and to the reviewers who suggested important improvements.


  1. Austin, J. L. (1946). Other minds. Aristotelian Soc Suppl, 20, 148–187.Google Scholar
  2. Barrio, E., Clerbout, N., & Rahman, S. (2018). Introducing consistency in a dialogical framework. submitted.Google Scholar
  3. Beirlaen, M., & Fontaine, M. (2016). Inconsistency-adaptive dialogical logic. Logica Universalis.Google Scholar
  4. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brandom, R. (1997). A study guide. In W. Sellars (Ed.), Empiricism and the philosophy of mind (pp. 119–189). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clerbout, N. (2014b). Étude sur quelques sémantiques dialogiques : Concepts fondamentaux et éléments de métathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Clerbout, N., & Rahman, S. (2015). Linking game-theoretical approaches with constructive type theory: Dialogical strategies as CTT-demonstrations. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crubellier, M. (2014). Aristote, Premiers analytiques. Traduction, introduction et commentaire. Garnier-Flammarion.Google Scholar
  11. Duthil Novaes, C. (2015). A dialogical, multiagent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica, 69(4), 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duthil Novaes, C. & French, R. (2018). A dialogical, multiagent account of the normativity of logic. Philosophical Issues, 28(4), pp. 129–158.Google Scholar
  13. Dybjer, P. (1994, July). Inductive families. Form asp Comput vol. 6, pp. 440–465. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6, 440–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frege, G. (1979). Boole’s logical calculus and the concept script [1880/81]. In K. Hermes & K. (Eds.), Gottlob Frege posthumous Writtings (pp. 9–52). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Herder, J. G. (1960 [1772]). Abhandulung über der Ursprung der Sprache. In E. Heintel, Johann Gottfried Herder. Spachphilosophische Schriften. (pp. 3–87). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  16. Hintikka, J. (1973). Logic, language-games and information: Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hintikka, J. (1996). Ludwig Wittgenstein: Half truths and one-and-a-half truths. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodges, W. (2001). Dialogue foundations: A sceptical look. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 75(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodges, W. (2008). Logic and games. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.Google Scholar
  20. Howard, W. A. (1980). The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In J. P. Seldin, & J. R. Hindley (Eds.), To H. B. Curry: Essays on combinatory logic, lambda Calculus and formalism (pp. 479–490). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Keiff, L. (2004). Heuristique formelle et logiques modales non normales. Philosophia Scientiae, 8(2), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keiff, L. (2007). Le Pluralisme dialogique: Approches dynamiques de l’argumentation formelle. Lille: PhD.Google Scholar
  23. Keiff, L. (2009). Dialogical logic. (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) Retrieved from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
  24. Klev, A. (2017). The justification of identity elimination in Martin-Löf’s type theory. Topoi, 1–25.Google Scholar
  25. Krabbe, E. C. (1985). Formal systems of dialogue rules. Synthese, 63, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorenz, K. (1970). Elemente der Sprachkritik. Eine Alternative zum Dogmatismus und Skeptizismus in der Analytischen Philosophie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenz, K. (1981). Dialogical logic. In W. Marciszewsku (Ed.), Dictionary of logic as applied in the study of language (pp. 117–125). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorenz, K. (2001). Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. S. Rahman, & H. Rückert, (Eds.) 127(1–2), 225–263.Google Scholar
  29. Lorenz, K. (2009). Dialogischer Konstruktivismus. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Lorenz, K. (2010a). Logic, language and method: On polarities in human experiences. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Lorenz, K. (2010b). Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstrass greschrievener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Lorenz, K., & Mittelstrass, J. (1967). On rational philosophy of language. The Programme in Plato’s Cratylus reconsidered. Mind, 76(301), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marion, M. (2006). Hintikka on Wittgenstein: From language games to game semantics. In T. Aho & A.-V. Pietarinen (Eds.), Truth and games: Essays in honour of Gabriel Sandu (pp. 237–256). Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  34. Marion, M. (2009). Why play logical games? In O. Majer, A. V. Pietarinen, & T. Tulenheimo (Eds.), L. a. Games: Unifying logic. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Marion, M. (2010). Between saying and doing: From Lorenzen to Brandom and Back. In P. E. Bour, M. Rebuschi, & L. Rollet (Eds.), Constructions: Essays in honour of Gerhard Heinzmann (pp. 489–497). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Marion, M., & Rückert, H. (2015). Aristotle on universal quantification: A study from the perspective of game semantics. History and Philosophy of Logic, 37(3), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin-Löf, P. (1971). Hauptsatz for the intuitionistic theory of iterated inductive definitions. In J. E. Fenstad (Ed.), Proceedings of the second Scandinavian logic symposium (pp. 179–216). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic type theory. Notes by Giovanni Sambin of a series of lectures given in Padua, June 1980. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
  39. Martin-Löf, P. (2014). Truth of empirical propositions. Lecture held at the University of Leiden, February 2014. Transcription by: Amsten Klev.Google Scholar
  40. Martin-Löf, P. (2015). Is logic part of normative ethics? Lecture Held at the research Unity Sciences, Normes, Décisions (FRE 3593), Paris, May 2015. Transcription by:: Amsten Klev.Google Scholar
  41. Martin-Löf, P. (2017a). Assertion and request. Lecture held at Oslo, 2017. Transcription by Ansten Klev.Google Scholar
  42. Martin-Löf, P. (2017b). Assertion and request. Lecture held at Stockholm. Transcription by Ansten Klev.Google Scholar
  43. McDowell, J. (2009). Having the world in view: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism. Why rules matter. New York: Plagrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prior, A. (1960). The runabout inference-ticket. Analysis, 21, 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rahman, S. (2001). On Frege’s nightmare: A combination of intuitionistic, Free and paraconsistent logics. In H. Wansing, Essays on non-classical logics (pp. 61–90). New Jersey/London/Singapore/Hong Kong: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rahman, S. (2002, October). “Un Desafío para las Teorías Cognitivas de la Competencia Lógica: Los Fundamentos Pragmáticos de la Semántica de la Lógica Linear”. Manuscrito, 25(2), 381–432.Google Scholar
  48. Rahman, S. (2012). Negation in the logic of first degree entailment and Tonk. A dialogical study. In S. Rahman, G. Primiero, & M. Marion (Eds.), The realism-antirealism debate in the age of alternative logics (pp. 213–250). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  49. Rahman, S. (2019). The logic of reasons and endorsement. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Constructive semantics, Springer. Chapter I. In printGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahman, S., & Carnielli, W. (2000). The dialogical approach to paraconsistency. Synthese, 125(1–2), 201–232.Google Scholar
  51. Rahman, S., & Clerbout, N. (2015). Constructive type theory and the dialogical turn : A new start for the Erlanger Konstruktivismus. In J. Mittelstrass & C. von Bülow (Eds.), Dialogische Logik (pp. 91–148). Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  52. Rahman, S., & Iqbal, M. (2018). Unfolding parallel reasoning in Islamic Jurisprudence. Epistemic and dialectical meaning within Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī’s system of co-relational inferences of the occasioning factor. Cambridge Journal of Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 28, 67–132.Google Scholar
  53. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Rahman, S., Fiutek, V., & Rückert, H. (2010). A dialogical semantics for Bonanno’s system of belief revision”. In P. E. Bour, M. Rebuschi, L. Rollet (Eds.), Construction (pp. 315–334). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., & Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent reasoning. A plaidoyer for the play level. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Keiff, L. (2009). On dialogues and natural deduction. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic: Essays dedicated to Göran Sundholm (pp. 301–336). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Rahman, S., Redmond, J., & Clerbout, N. (2017). “Interaction and Equality. The dialogical interprepretation of CTT” (In Spanish). Critica, 49(145), 51–91.Google Scholar
  58. Ranta, A. (1988). Propositions as games as types. Syntese, 76, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Read, S. (2008). Harmony and modality. In C. Dégremont, L. Kieff, & H. Rückert (Eds.), Dialogues, logics and other strange things: Essays in honour of Shahid Rahman (pp. 285–303). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Read, S. (2010). General elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Redmond, J., & Rahman, S. (2016). Armonía Dialógica: tonk Teoría Constructiva de Tipos y Reglas para Jugadores Anónimos. Theoria, 31(1), 27–53.Google Scholar
  62. Rückert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a dynamic framework for logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Sellars, W. (1991). Science, perception and reality. Atascadero-California: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  64. Shafiei, M. (2017). Intentionnalité et signification: Une approche dialogique. Paris: PHD-thesis, Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  65. Smullyan, R. (1968). First-order logic. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Sundholm, G. (1997). Implicit epistemic aspects of constructive logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sundholm, G. (2001). A Plea for logical atavism. In O. Majer (Ed.), The Logica yearbook 2000 (pp. 151–162). Prague: Filosofía.Google Scholar
  68. Sundholm, G. (2006). Semantic values for natural deduction derivations. Synthese, 148(3):623–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sundholm, G. (2012). “Inference versus Consequence” revisited: Inference, Consequence, Conditional, Implication. Synthese, 187(3):943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sundholm, G. (2013). Inference and Consequence in an Interpeted Language. Talk at the workshop proof theory and philosophy, Groningen, December 3–5, 2013.Google Scholar
  71. Trafford, J. (2017). Meaning in dialogue. An interactive approach to logic and reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. van Heijenoort, J. (1967). Logic as calculus and logic as language. Synthese, 17, 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Young, W. E. (2017). The dialectical forge. Juridical disputation and the evolution of Islamic law. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Lille: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahid Rahman
    • 1
  • Muhammad Iqbal
    • 1
  • Youcef Soufi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of philosophyUniversité de LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious StudiesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations