Advertisement

Basic Notions for Dialogical Logic

  • Shahid Rahman
  • Zoe McConaughey
  • Ansten Klev
  • Nicolas Clerbout
Chapter
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 18)

Abstract

The dialogical approach to logic is not a specific logical system; it is rather a general framework having a rule-based approach to meaning (instead of a truth-functional or a model-theoretical approach) which allows different logics to be developed, combined and compared within it. The main philosophical idea behind this framework is that meaning and rationality are constituted by argumentative interaction between epistemic subjects; it has proved particularly fruitful in history of philosophy and logic. We shall here provide a brief overview of dialogues in a more intuitive approach than what is found in the rest of the book in order to give a feeling of what the dialogical framework can do and what it is aiming at.

References

  1. Beirlaen, M., & Fontaine, M. (2016). Inconsistency-adaptive dialogical logic. Logica Universalis, 10, 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cardascia, P. (2016). Dialogique des matrices. Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso, 6.Google Scholar
  3. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and Tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.Google Scholar
  4. Clerbout, N. (2014b). Étude sur quelques sémantiques dialogiques: Concepts fondamentaux et éléments de métathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Clerbout, N. (2014c). Finiteness of plays and the dialogical problem of decidability. IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 1(1), 115–140.Google Scholar
  6. Clerbout, N., Gorisse, M.-H., & Rahman, S. (2011). Context-sensitivity in Jain philosophy: A dialogical study of/Siddharsiganis commentary on the handbook of logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(5), 633–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duthil Novaes, C. (2007). Formalizing medieval logical theories: Suppositio, consequentiae and obligationes. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Felscher. (1985). Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic. In D. Gabbay, F. & Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 3, pp. 341–372). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Fontaine, M. (2013). Argumentation et engagement ontologique. Être, c’est être choisi. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Keiff, L. (2007). Le Pluralisme dialogique: Approches dynamiques de l'argumentation formelle. Lille: PhD.Google Scholar
  11. Keiff, L. (2009). Dialogical logic (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical
  12. Krabbe, E. C. (1982). Studies in dialogical logic. Rijksuniversiteit, Gröningen: PhD.Google Scholar
  13. Krabbe, E. C. (1985). Formal systems of dialogue rules. Synthese, 63, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krabbe, E. C. (2006). Dialogue logic. In D. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 7, pp. 665–704). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Lorenz, K. (2001). Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. (S. Rahman & H. Rückert, Eds.). Synthese 127(1–2), 225–263.Google Scholar
  16. Lorenz, K. (2010a). Logic, language and method: On polarities in human experiences. Berlin, Germany/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Lorenz, K. (2010b). Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstrass geschriebener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin, Germany/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Damstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  19. Magnier, S. (2013). Approche dialogique de la dynamique épistémique et de la condition juridique. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Nzokou, G. (2013). Logique de l'argumentation dans les traditions orales africaines. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Popek, A. (2012). Logical dialogues from middle ages. In C. Barés Gómez, S. Magnier, & F. J. Salguero (Eds.), Logic of knowledge. Theory and applications (pp. 223–244). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Prior, A. (1960). The runabout inference-ticket. Analysis, 21, 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rahman, S. (1993). Über Dialogue, Prologische Kategorien und andere Seltenheiten. Frankfurt, Germany/Paris, France/New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  25. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2010). La Dialectique entre logique et rhétorique. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 66(2), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahman, S., & Redmond, J. (2015). A dialogical frame for fictions as hypothetical objects. Filosofia Unisinos, 16(1), 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rahman, S., & Tulenheimo, T. (2009). From games to dialogues and back: Towards a general frame for validity. In O. Majer, A. Pietarinen, & T. Tulenheimo (Eds.), Games: Unifying logic, language and philosophy (pp. 153–208). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Redmond, J. (2010). Logique dynamique de la fiction. Pour une approche dialogique. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Redmond, J., & Fontaine, M. (2011). How to play dialogues: An introduction to dialogical logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Redmond, J., & Rahman, S. (2016). Armonía Dialógica: Tonk Teoría Constructiva de Tipos y Reglas para Jugadores Anónimos. Theoria, 31(1), 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rückert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a dynamic framework for logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Sundholm, G. (1997). Implicit epistemic aspects of constructive logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sundholm, G. (2001). A plea for logical atavism. In O. Majer (Ed.), The logica yearbook 2000 (pp. 151–162). Prague: Filosofía.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahid Rahman
    • 1
  • Zoe McConaughey
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ansten Klev
    • 4
  • Nicolas Clerbout
    • 5
  1. 1.Département de philosophie CNRS, UMR 8163 - STL - Savoirs Textes LangageUniv. LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8163 - STL - Savoirs Textes LangageLilleFrance
  3. 3.Département de philosophie & Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Science et TechnologieUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  4. 4.Institute of PhilosophyCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzechia
  5. 5.Universidad de ValparaísoValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations