کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی نسخه تمام متن
4662876 1345202 2016 24 صفحه PDF ندارد دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله
From reasonable preferences, via argumentation, to logic
ترجمه فارسی عنوان
از تنظیمات مناسب از طریق استدلال تا منطق
کلمات کلیدی
استدلال؛ نظریه بازی؛ منطق گفت و گو؛ بازی نظری معناشناسی؛ محدود بازیکنان عقلانی؛ استنتاج؛ پراگما دیالکتیک
Argumentation; Game theory; Dialogical logic; Game-theoretic semantics; Bounded rational players; Inference; Pragma-dialectics
موضوعات مرتبط
مهندسی و علوم پایه ریاضیات منطق ریاضی
چکیده انگلیسی

This article demonstrates that typical restrictions which are imposed in dialogical logic in order to recover first-order logical consequence from a fragment of natural language argumentation are also forthcoming from preference profiles of boundedly rational players, provided that these players instantiate a specific player type and compute partial strategies. We present two structural rules, which are formulated similarly to closure rules for tableaux proofs that restrict players' strategies to a mapping between games in extensive forms (i.e., game trees) and proof trees. Both rules are motivated from players' preferences and limitations; they can therefore be viewed as being player-self-imposable. First-order logical consequence is thus shown to result from playing a specific type of argumentation game. The alignment of such games with the normative model of the Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is positively evaluated. But explicit rules to guarantee that the argumentation game instantiates first-order logical consequence have now become gratuitous, since their normative content arises directly from players' preferences and limitations. A similar naturalization for non-classical logics is discussed.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Journal of Applied Logic - Volume 18, November 2016, Pages 105–128
نویسندگان
, , ,