Computational Dialectics Based on Specialization and Generalization – A New Reasoning Method for Conflict Resolution

  • Hiroyuki Kido
  • Masahito Kurihara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5447)


The purpose of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, to formalize one aspect of dialectical thought, i.e., our way of thinking about conflict resolution. Secondly, to show that this way of thinking allows agents to resolve a conflict by argumentation. To this end, we propose a dialectical reasoning method by means of specialization and generalization defined by a logical implication. This method has three features. First, it does not limit its premises to logical contradictions in accordance with philosophical knowledge that an antithesis is not adequately expressed as logical negation of a thesis. Second, it embraces our actual and familiar thoughts exemplified in this paper. Third, it has the ability to draw conclusions that are not just logical deductions from its premises. Further, by applying it to argumentation, we show that it allows agents to resolve a conflict by drawing an alternative solution not deduced from any consistent subset of the union of all agents’ knowledge base. In other words, it allows agents to develop argumentation dialogically in terms of producing an alternative solution that is not obtained at the beginning of argumentation.


Logical Negation Inductive Logic Programming Logical Implication Argumentation Framework Logical Deduction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sawamura, H., Yamashita, M., Umeda, Y.: Applying dialectic agents to argumentation in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research 3(3-4), 297–313 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitroff, I.I., Mason, R.O.: On the structure of dialectical reasoning in the social and policy sciences. Theory and Decision 14(4), 331–350 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sabre, R.M.: An alternative logical framework for dialectical reasoning in the social and policy sciences. Theory and Decision 30(3), 187–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nisbett, R.E.: The Geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently..and Why. Free Press (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Routley, R., Meyer, R.K.: Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world. Studies in East European Thought 16(1-2), 1–25 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean, G.P., Jeffrey, Z.R.: Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. Random House (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nozawa, S.: Negotiation study for conflict resolution. PHP Laboratory (2004) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nienhuys-Cheng, S.H., de Wolf, R.: Foundation of Inductive Logic Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Kido
    • 1
  • Masahito Kurihara
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Information and ScienceHokkaido UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations