A free dialogical logic for surrogate reasoning: generation of hypothesis without ontological commitments

This article aims to present a Free Dialogic Logic [FDL] as a general framework for hypothesis generation in the practice of modelling in science. Our proposal is based on the idea that the inferential function that models fulfil during the modelling process (surrogate reasoning) should be carried out without ontological commitments. The starting point to achieve our objective is that the scientific consideration of models without a target is a symptom that, on the one hand, the Applicability of Logic should be considered among the conditions of adequacy that should take into account all modeling process and, on the other, that the inferential apparatus at the base of the surrogate reasoning process must be rid of realistic assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions. In this sense, we propose as an alternative an ontologically neutral inferential system in the perspective of dialogical pragmatism.

Conceptions of Infinity and Set in Lorenzen’s Operationist System

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Lorenzen developed his operative logic and mathematics, a form of constructive mathematics. Nowadays this is mostly seen as a precursor of the better-known dialogical logic (Notable exceptions are the works of Schroeder-Heister 2008; Coquand and Neuwirth 2017; Kahle and Oitavem 2020.), and one might assume that the same philosophical motivations were present in both works. However, we want to show that this is not everywhere the case. In particular, we claim that Lorenzen’s well-known rejection of the actual infinite, as stated in Lorenzen (1957), was not a major motivation for operative logic and mathematics. Rather, we argue that a shift happened in Lorenzen’s treatment of the infinite from the early to the late 1950s. His early motivation for the development of operationism is concerned with a critique of the Cantorian notion of set and with related questions about the notions of countability and uncountability; it is only later that his motivation switches to focusing on the concept of infinity and the debate about actual and potential infinity.

Dialectics as immanent critique. Or, dialectics as both ontology and epistemology with a practical intention

This response to Asger S?rensen?s paper From Ontology to Epistemology: Tong, Mao and Hegel is made on the basis of a reflection on the author?s intellectual development with special reference to the idea of ?dialectics?. This development is mainly composed of three periods, in which the author formed his strong antipathy toward dialectics as a mere tool of power (in the 1970s), learnt to understand the importance of ?dialogical logic? in providing conceptual tools for human knowledge of a type of reality which is both objective and subjective - human practices (in the 1980s) - and attempted to understand the ?dialectics of rationalization? by integrating ?dialectics? in the Western tradition of Critical Theory with the Chinese tradition of ?dialectics? systematically interpreted by Feng Qi (1915-1995) since the 1990s.

Image and word as forms of iconic depiction

This paper focuses on the relation between icon and depiction and their equally central role both in verbal and in nonverbal artistic texts. For this purpose, I will examine the contact points between Jakobson and Bakhtin’s theory of text. In particular, I will dwell on Jakobson’s “Quest for the essence of language” and on Bakhtin’s “The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences.” Both Jakobson and Bakhtin build their idea of text on this dialogue between different dimensions. According to Bakhtin dialogical logic is the specific logic of the text. Though indispensable in the initial phase of understanding, the first is reductive if it claims to exhaust the semantic import of the text. Both in Bakhtin and in Jakobson, this idea of text based upon a dialogue between different dimensions implies that sign expression cannot be exhausted in representation because there is something which exceeds representation. I will call this excedent element “depiction.” Depiction is what is at stake in the artistic text, what exceeds the symbolic level of representation. “Depiction” can be configured, both in verbal and non-verbal text, as an idea of iconicity which exceeds resemblance and immediate visibility.

Between sentential and model-based abductions: a dialogical approach

Most of the standard approaches consider abduction in terms of a backward reasoning and miss some of its fundamental features. Overall, they neglect its pragmatic dimension and the conjectural aspect of the conclusion. In this paper, we approach abduction in terms of strategic adjustment process in the context of dialogical logic. This sheds light on the use of conjectures in argumentative interactions. Although abductive dialogues are sometimes based upon sentential conjectures, they can also involve hypotheses about the context of argumentation itself. Indeed, the underlying logic of an argumentative interaction is not always settled since the beginning. In this context, abduction is not only concerned with the introduction of sentential hypotheses, but also with hypotheses concerning the structural rules governing the dialogue itself. We thus emphasize the instrumental dimension of abduction in dialogues.

BDI logic applied to a dialogical interpretation of human–machine cooperative dialogues

We first define a language for the dialogical logic and the models that the language generates. This language is thought to capture the structure of the dialogues captured by Lekta—a software framework oriented to the design and implementation of natural language processing-related applications—and its users. These dialogues are defined as cooperative dialogues in which the dialogical logic perspective of a dialogue seen as a competition is shifted into a perspective in which both agents cooperate towards a common goal. Later we define a BDI temporal logic based on a modal framework that we will use to study the beliefs, desires and intentions of both agents based on the model generated by the dialogical logic.

Auf der Suche nach einer komplexen Friedenslogik –Versuch einer metatheoretischen Verortung undNeuorientierung

The dualistic juxtaposition of the logic of peace and the logic of security is necessary for the political debate but not sufficient to overcome the dominance of the security approach in political theory and practice. This article seeks to broaden and deepen the understanding of the relationship between the logic of peace and the logic of security on different levels of meaning. Firstly, this relationship is explored on the level of meaning of a logic of action and intervention. Secondly, this relationship is discussed on the level of meaning of a logic of research and the meta-theoretical paradigms on which the logic of action is constructed. Thirdly, this relationship is further reflected on the level of meaning of a logic of thought and rationality. Founded in a philosophy of complexity a dialogical “logic of complexity” is proposed as a metaparadigm for a complex logic of peace that is both critical and integrative of the logic of security.

Dialogical logic

Dialogical logic characterizes logical constants (such as ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘for all’) by their use in a critical dialogue between two parties: a proponent who has asserted a thesis and an opponent who challenges it. For each logical constant, a rule specifies how to challenge a statement that displays the corresponding logical form, and how to respond to such a challenge. These rules are incorporated into systems of regimented dialogue that are games in the game-theoretical sense. Dialogical concepts of logical consequence can then be based upon the concept of a winning strategy in a (formal) dialogue game: B is a logical consequence of A if and only if there is a winning strategy for the proponent of B against any opponent who is willing to concede A. But it should be stressed that there are several plausible (and non-equivalent) ways to draw up the rules.