Published July 31, 2020 | Version v1
Journal article Open

NO-ARGUMENTS: Denials, Refutations, Negations and the Constitution of Arguments

Creators

  • 1. Université de Lille, UMR: 8163, STL

Description

L. Horn’s book The Natural History of Negation (Chicago UP, 1989) set both a landmark on the study of negation and a challenge. The challenge is to find some general way to understand what negation is. In fact, while for logicians and philosophers negation is a sentence building operator standardly understood as the reversal of truth and falsity for linguists negation involves a complex network of phenomena that go beyond the notion of sentence operator. Now, since the arrival and development of new notions of logic, different kinds of negation were formulated – sometimes understood as standing in competition: negations with metalogical features (involving the rejection of non-monotony), negation as different to the fact that a proof of a given proposition is still lacking (involving the rejection of the validity of third excluded), negation as modality (involving the rejection of non-contradiction and ex-falso sequitur quodlibet) and so on. In fact the paper ends with the proposal for a general theory of meaning embracing all these different logical constants.

My aim is to show how the role of negation in argumentation yields an approach general enough to capture the meaning of all this fauna of negative logical constants. The point is thus to show the fruitfulness of an argumentative approach to the study of a notoriously resilient logical constant. Though, it is about how argumentative perspectives can contribute to logical issues, the idea behind is certainly that if the logic is already developed in an argumentative frame; the further task to develop abstract structures to study “real argumentation” should be made easier at least more naturally (more on this perhaps in the discussion)

Files

RAHMAN.pdf

Files (2.4 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:f0e01af758833f9c149a1c1128c53a6e
2.4 MB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • CLERBOUT, N. (2011). Dialogical Games for First-Order Logic and Tableaux'. Paper presented at the 14e Congrès de Logique, Méthodologie et Philosophie des Sciences. 19–26 juillet, Nancy (France).
  • CLERBOUT, N. / KEIFF, L. / RAHMAN, S. (2007): Dialogues and Natural Deduction. In G. Primiero and S. Rahman (ed.) Acts of Knowledge, History, Philosophy, Logic. G. Primiero (ed.), London : College Publications. chapter 4.
  • DUNN, M. (1976). Intuitive Semantics for First-Degree-Entailments and Coupled-Trees. Philosophical Studies, 29, 149-168.
  • FELSCHER, W.(1985). Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic. In D. Gabbay, D. and F. Guenthner, (editors), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume 3, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 341–372.
  • REDMOND, J. / FONTAINE, M. (2011). How to Play Dialogues. An Introduction to Dialogical Logic. London : College Publications, London.
  • FIUTEK, V. / RÜCKERT, H. / RAHMAN, S. (2010) A Dialogical Semantics for Bonanno's System of Belief Revision. To appear in Constructions . P. Bour et alii (ed.), London : College Publications.
  • GENTZEN, G. (1935). Untersuchungen Ueber das Logische Schliessen. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39: 176–210.
  • HINTIKKA, J. (1999). Inquiry as Inquiry: A Logic of Scientific Discovery. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • HINTIKKA, J., HALONEN, I., AND MUTANEN, A. (1999). Interrogative Logic as a General Theory of Reasoning. In Hintikka 1999, pages 47–90.
  • KEIFF, L. (2004). Heuristique formelle et logiques modales non normales. Philosophia Scientiae, vol. 8-2, 39-59.
  • KEIFF, L. (2004). Introduction à la dialogique modale et hybride. Philosophia Scientiae, vol. 8-2, 89-105.
  • KEIFF, L. (2007). Approches dynamiques à l'argumentation formelle. PHD thesis, Lille: Université de Lille.
  • KEIFF, L. (2009). Dialogical Logic, Entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2009,http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical/
  • KEIFF, L. / RAHMAN, S. (2010). La Dialectique entre logique et rhétorique. Revue de Métaphysique et Morale, Avril-June 2010, vol. 2, 149-178.
  • LORENZ, K. Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. Synthese, vol. 127: 255–263.
  • LORENZEN, P. (1995) Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik. Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer.
  • LORENZEN P. / LORENZ K (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
  • PRAWITZ, D (1979). Proofs and the meaning and completeness of the logical constants. In J. Hintikka, I. Niiniluoto, and E. Saarinen (editors), Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic, Dordrecht: Reidel, 25–40.
  • PRIEST, G. (2001). An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
  • PRIEST, G. (2011). Realism, Antirealism and Consistency. In the present volume.
  • RAHMAN, S (1993). Über Dialogue, Protologische Kategorien und andere Seltenheiten. Frankfurt/Paris/ N. York: P. Lang.
  • RAHMAN, S. (2009). A non normal logic for a wonderful world and more. In J. van Benthem et alia The Age of Alternative Logics, chez Dordrecht: Kluwer-Springer, 311 334.
  • RAHMAN, S. (2012). Negation in the Logic of First Degree Entailment and Tonk. A Dialogical Study. In G. Primiero et alii (ed.). In (Anti)Realism. The Realism-Realism Debate in the Age of Alternative Logics. Dordrecht: Springer, 175-202.
  • RAHMAN, S. / CLERBOUT, N. / KEIFF, L. (2009). Dialogues and Natural Deduction. Acts of Knowledge, History, Philosophy, Logic. G. Primiero (ed.), London : College Publications, 301-336.
  • RAHMAN, S. / KEIFF, L. (2004). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (ed.), Logic, Thought and Action, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 359-408.
  • RAHMAN, S. / RÜCKERT, H. (2001). New Perspectives in Dialogical Logic. Special volume of Synthese, vol. 127.
  • RAHMAN, S. / TULENHEIMO, T. (2009). From Games to Dialogues and Back: Towards a General Frame for Validity. In O. Majer, A-V. Pietarinen and T. Tulenheimo (editors), Games: Unifying Logic, Language and Philosophy, Part III, Dordrecht, Springer.
  • READ, S. (2008). Harmony and modality. In C. Dégremont, L. Keiff, and H. Rückert (editors), Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things: Essays in Honour of Shahid Rahman, London: College Publications, 2008, 285–303.
  • READ, S. (2010). General Elimination Harmony and the Meaning of the Logical Constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39: 557-576.
  • ROUTLEY, R. AND V. ROUTLEY. (1972). The Semantics of First Degree Entailment. Noûs 6: 335–95.
  • RÜCKERT, H. (2001). Why Dialogical Logic? In H. Wansing (ed.), Essays on Non-Classical Logic, N. Jersey, London …: World Scientific, 165-185.
  • RÜCKERT, H. (2007). Dialogues as a dynamic framework for logic. PHD-Thesis, Leyden, 2007. Online in: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/12099/1/R%C3%BCckert_Ph_Dialogues_neu.pdf
  • RÜCKERT, H. (2011). The Conception of Validity in Dialogical Logic. Talk at the workshop Proofs and Dialogues, Tübingen, organized by the Wilhelm-Schickard Institut für Informatik (Universität Tübingen), 25-27 February 2011.
  • SCHRÖDER-HEISTER, P. (2008). P. Lorenzen's operative justification of intuitionistic logic. In M. van Atten, P. Boldini, M. Bourdeau, G. Heinzmann (eds.), One Hundred Years of Intuitionism (1907-2007), Basel: Birkhäuser.
  • SMULLYAN; R. (1968). First-Order Logic. Heidelberg: Springer.
  • SUNDHOLM, B. G. (1983a). Constructions, proofs and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 12, 151-72.
  • SUNDHOLM, B. G. (1983b). Systems of deduction', chapter I:2 in: Gabbay, D., and F. Guenthner, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. I, Reidel, Dordrecht.
  • SUNDHOLM, B. G. (2010). Proofs as Acts and Proofs as Objects: Some Questions for Dag Prawitz. Theoria 64 (2-3):187-216.
  • TULENHEIMO, T. (2010). On the dialogical approach to semantics. Talk at the Workshop Amsterdam/Lille: Dialogues and Games: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 8 9 February 2010, Lille. (Online inhttp://www.tulenheimo.webs.com/talks.html)