Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation

Author

Douglas N. Walton | University of Winnipeg

Hardbound – Available

ISBN 9789027218858 | EUR 110.00 | USD 165.00

e-Book –

ISBN 9789027292001 | EUR 110.00 | USD 165.00

Because of the need to devise systems for electronic communication on the internet, multi-agent computing is moving to a model of communication as a structured conversation between rational agents. For example, in multi-agent systems, an electronic agent searches around the internet, and collects certain kinds of information by asking questions to other agents. Such agents also reason with each other when they engage in negotiation and persuasion. It is shown in this book that critical argumentation is best represented in this framework by the model of reasoned argument called a dialog, in which two or more parties engage in a polite and orderly exchange with each other according to rules governed by conversation policies. In such dialog argumentation, the two parties reason together by taking turns asking questions, offering replies, and offering reasons to support a claim. They try to settle their disagreements by an orderly conversational exchange that is partly adversarial and partly collaborative.

[Controversies, 5] 2007. xviii, 308 pp.

Publishing status: Available

https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.5

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements | pp. xi–xii

Acronyms | pp. xiii–xiv

Introduction:: Dialog theory for critical argumentation | pp. xv–xviii

Chapter 1. The place of dialog theory | pp. 1–45

Chapter 2. The history of dialectic | pp. 47–88

Chapter 3. Persuasion dialog | pp. 89–129

Chapter 4. Multi-agent dialog systems | pp. 131–157

Chapter 5. Agents in critical argumentation | pp. 159–203

Chapter 6. Dialectical shifts and embeddings | pp. 205–245

Chapter 7. Criticizing a natural language argument | pp. 247–287

Index | pp. 303–307

“Walton's book is certainly a major landmark in the study of critical discussion, with detailed models and extensive exemplification (notably in chapters six and seven) that help grasping the indubitably logical basis of fair argumentation.”

Louis de Saussure, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, in Pragmatics & Cognition, Vol. 17:2 (2009)

Cited by

Cited by 50 other publications

Order by:

Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij

2020. In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28:3 ► pp. 281 ff.

Bacchini, Fabio

2015. A popperian approach to rational argumentation in applied ethics. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:3 ► pp. 243 ff.

Bodlović, Petar

2017. Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 513 ff.

Bonzon, Elise, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny & Nicolas Maudet

2017. A Parametrized Ranking-Based Semantics for Persuasion. In Scalable Uncertainty Management [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10564], ► pp. 237 ff.

Bonzon, Elise, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny, Nicolas Maudet, Gabriella Pigozzi & Srdjan Vesic

2021. A parametrized ranking-based semantics compatible with persuasion principles. Argument & Computation 12:1 ► pp. 49 ff.

Brescó de Luna, Ignacio

2017. The end into the beginning: Prolepsis and the reconstruction of the collective past. Culture & Psychology 23:2 ► pp. 280 ff.

Bøgeskov, Benjamin Olivares, Lise Dam Rasmussen & Elvi Weinreich

2017. Between meaning and duty - leaders’ uses and misuses of ethical arguments in generating engagement. Journal of Nursing Management 25:2 ► pp. 129 ff.

Caminada, Martin W. A., Wolfgang Dvořák & Srdjan Vesic

2016. Preferred semantics as socratic discussion. Journal of Logic and Computation 26:4 ► pp. 1257 ff.

Campillo, Rosa María López & José Luis Gómez Ramos

2022. Argumentation Skills for the Design of Formative Assessment Queries. In Design and Measurement Strategies for Meaningful Learning [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 1 ff.

Can, S. Nazli & Deniz Saribas

2019. An Argumentative Tool for Facilitating Critical Evaluation. Science & Education 28:6-7 ► pp. 669 ff.

Cetinkaya, Ertan & Deniz Saribas

2023. Turkish middle school students’ evaluation of fallacious claims about vaccination. Cultural Studies of Science Education 18:4 ► pp. 1169 ff.

Chen, Ying-Chih, Benus, Mathew J. & Yarker, Morgan B.

2016. Using Models to Support Argumentation in the Science Classroom. The American Biology Teacher 78:7 ► pp. 549 ff.

Giaretta, Pierdaniele & Giuseppe Spolaore

2012. Validity and Effectiveness of Ambiguity: A Famous Argument by Socrates. Argumentation 26:3 ► pp. 393 ff.

Gibson, Howard & Darren Garside

2017. The Undergraduate Education Studies Dissertation: Philosophical Reflections upon Tacit Empiricism in Textbook Guidance and the Latent Capacity of Argumentation. Studies in Philosophy and Education 36:2 ► pp. 115 ff.

Groarke, Leo

2012. Should Mercier and Sperber Change the Way We Teach and Study Reasoning?. Argumentation and Advocacy 48:3 ► pp. 188 ff.

Ilie, Cornelia

2017. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices. In Argumentation across Communities of Practice [Argumentation in Context, 10], ► pp. 1 ff.

Johnson, Evan Layne

2018. Pragmatically synthesizing existing conspiracy styles: blending paranoia and politics in Richard Nixon’s early-career anticommunist rhetoric. Argumentation and Advocacy 54:3 ► pp. 238 ff.

Laas, Oliver

2016. Toward Truthlikeness in Historiography. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy VIII:2

Lemaitre, Christian & Pablo Noriega

2017. Characterising Polemical Disputes. In Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10207], ► pp. 549 ff.

Lombardi, Doug, Carol B. Brandt, Elliot S. Bickel & Colin Burg

2016. Students’ evaluations about climate change. International Journal of Science Education 38:8 ► pp. 1392 ff.

Macagno, Fabrizio

2012. Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions. Argumentation 26:2 ► pp. 233 ff.

Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de

2023. Irony and Cognitive Operations. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 38 ff.

Namdar, Bahadir & Ji Shen

2016. Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education 38:7 ► pp. 1100 ff.

Newell, George E., Richard Beach, Jamie Smith & Jennifer VanDerHeide

2011. Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research. Reading Research Quarterly 46:3 ► pp. 273 ff.

Nussbaum, E. Michael

2011. Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education. Educational Psychologist 46:2 ► pp. 84 ff.

Nussbaum, E. Michael & Ordene V. Edwards

2011. Critical Questions and Argument Stratagems: A Framework for Enhancing and Analyzing Students' Reasoning Practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences 20:3 ► pp. 443 ff.

Ormerod, Richard

2020. The pragmatic logic of OR consulting practice: Towards a foundational view. Journal of the Operational Research Society 71:11 ► pp. 1691 ff.

Ormerod, Richard J.

2018. The logic and methods of OR consulting practice: towards a foundational view. Journal of the Operational Research Society 69:9 ► pp. 1357 ff.

Rocci, Andrea

2017. Meaning and Argumentation. In Modality in Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 29], ► pp. 33 ff.

Samoilenko, Sergei A. & John Cook

2024. Developing a Critical Response to Ad Hominem Attacks Against Climate Science. American Behavioral Scientist

Sheldrick, R. Christopher, Gracelyn Cruden, Ana J. Schaefer & Thomas I. Mackie

2021. Rapid-cycle systems modeling to support evidence-informed decision-making during system-wide implementation. Implementation Science Communications 2:1

Song (宋郁), Yu & Yuchen Shi (石雨晨)

2023. Understanding, Evaluating, and Promoting the Development of Argumentative Competence: An Interview With Dr. Deanna Kuhn From Teachers College, Columbia University. ECNU Review of Education ► pp. 209653112311700 ff.

Spranzi, Marta

2012. The Nature and Purpose of Aristotelian Dialectic Revisited: Argumentation Theory, Scientific Controversies and Epistemology. In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory [Argumentation Library, 22], ► pp. 163 ff.

Trognon, Alain, Martine Batt, Manuel Rebuschi & Christine Sorsana

2010. Une approche des raisonnements émergents de l’interlocution : la logique interlocutoire. Pratiques :147-148 ► pp. 131 ff.

van Eemeren, Frans H.

2012. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion. Argumentation 26:4 ► pp. 439 ff.

van Eemeren, Frans H.

2015. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation Under Discussion. In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse [Argumentation Library, 27], ► pp. 181 ff.