Kurzbeschreibung

This highly innovative study deploys multi-agent simulation of controversial debate to explore whether, in fact, critical argumentation is an effective way to overcome disagreement. It synthesizes research in both formal epistemology and argumentation theory.

Inhaltsangabe

1. General Introduction.- 2. Theory of Dialectical Structures.- Part I: Why Do We Agree? On the Consensus-conduciveness of Controversial Argumentation.- 3. Introduction to Part I.- 4. Random Debates.- 5. Background Knowledge.- 6. Four Argumentation Strategies.- 7. Argumentation Strategies in Many-proponent Debates.- 8. Core Updating.- 9. Core Argumentation.- Part II: How Do We Know? On the Truth-conduciveness of Controversial Argumentation.- 10. Introduction to Part II.- 11. Random Debates.- 12. Background Knowledge.- 13. Four Argumentation Strategies.- 14. Argumentation Strategies in Many-proponent Debates.- 15. Core Updating.- 16. Core Argumentation.- Symbols.- References.- Index.

Klappentext

Is critical argumentation an effective way to overcome disagreement? And does the exchange of arguments bring opponents in a controversy closer to the truth? This study provides a new perspective on these pivotal questions. By means of multi-agent simulations, it investigates the truth and consensus-conduciveness of controversial debates. The book brings together research in formal epistemology and argumentation theory. Aside from its consequences for discursive practice, the work may have important implications for philosophy of science and the way we construe scientific rationality as well.