ISBN:
9789400745995
,
128363385X
,
9781283633857
Sprache:
Englisch
Seiten:
Online-Ressource (X, 255 p. 102 illus., 12 illus. in color, digital)
Serie:
Synthese Library, Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science 357
Serie:
SpringerLink
Serie:
Bücher
Paralleltitel:
Buchausg. u.d.T. Betz, Gregor Debate dynamics: how controversy improves our beliefs
Schlagwort(e):
Philosophy (General)
;
Genetic epistemology
;
Logic
;
Science Philosophy
;
Artificial intelligence
;
Philosophy
;
Philosophy (General)
;
Genetic epistemology
;
Logic
;
Science Philosophy
;
Artificial intelligence
;
Argumentationstheorie
;
Debatte
Kurzfassung:
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.
Beschreibung / Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs; Acknowledgements; Contents; Chapter 1: General Introduction; 1.1 The Aims of Argumentation; 1.2 An Example of a Controversial Argumentation; 1.3 Modeling Controversial Debate; 1.4 Results Pertaining to Consensus-Conduciveness; 1.5 Results Pertaining to Truth-Conduciveness; 1.6 Objections and Caveats; 1.7 Putting the Approach in Perspective; Chapter 2: An Introduction to the Theory of Dialectical Structures; 2.1 Fundamental Concepts; 2.2 Degrees of Justification; 2.3 The Space of Coherent Positions; 2.4 Normalized Closeness Centrality
Beschreibung / Inhaltsverzeichnis:
2.5 Inferential Density2.6 The General Design of the Simulations; Part I: Why Do We Agree? On the Consensus-Conduciveness of Controversial Argumentation; Chapter 3: Introduction to Part I; 3.1 Outline of Part I; 3.2 Main Results and Their Justification; Chapter 4: The Consensual Dynamics of Simple Random Debates; 4.1 Setup; 4.2 Results; 4.3 Discussion; 4.4 Results, Continued; 4.5 Discussion, Continued; Chapter 5: The Consensual Dynamics of Random Debates with Explicit Background Knowledge; 5.1 Setup; 5.2 Results; 5.3 Discussion
Beschreibung / Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Chapter 6: Comparing the Consensual Dynamics of Four Proponent-Specific Argumentation Strategies in Dualistic Debates6.1 Setup; 6.2 Results; 6.3 Discussion; Chapter 7: The Consensual Dynamics of Argumentation Strategies in Many-Proponent Debates; 7.1 Setup; 7.2 Results; 7.3 Discussion; Chapter 8: The Consensual Dynamics of Debates with Core Updating; 8.1 Setup; 8.2 Results; 8.3 Discussion; Chapter 9: The Consensual Dynamics of Debates with Core Argumentation; 9.1 Setup; 9.2 Results; 9.3 Discussion; Part II: How Do We Know? On the Truth-Conduciveness of Controversial Argumentation
Beschreibung / Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Chapter 10: Introduction to Part II10.1 Outline of Part II; 10.2 Main Results and Their Justification; Chapter 11: The Veritistic Dynamics of Simple Random Debates; 11.1 Setup; 11.2 Results; 11.2.1 Truth's Attraction: How Rapidly Does the Proponents' Verisimilitude Increase?; 11.2.2 The Verisimilitude of Consensus Positions: Is Mutual Agreement a Good Indicator of Having Reached the Truth?; 11.2.3 The Verisimilitude of Stable Positions: Are Proponent Positions Which Remain Relatively Stable Closer to the Truth?; 11.3 Discussion
Beschreibung / Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Chapter 12: The Veritistic Dynamics of Random Debates with Explicit Background Knowledge12.1 Setup; 12.2 Results; 12.3 Discussion; Chapter 13: Comparing the Veritistic Dynamics of Four Proponent-Specific Argumentation Strategies in Dualistic Debates; 13.1 Setup; 13.2 Results; 13.3 Discussion; Chapter 14: The Veritistic Dynamics of Argumentation Strategies in Many-Proponent Debates; 14.1 Setup; 14.2 Results; 14.2.1 Truth's Attraction: How Rapidly Does the Proponents' Verisimilitude Increase?
Beschreibung / Inhaltsverzeichnis:
14.2.2 The Verisimilitude of Consensus Positions: Is Mutual Agreement a Good Indicator of Having Reached the Truth?
Anmerkung:
Description based upon print version of record
DOI:
10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5
URL:
Volltext
(lizenzpflichtig)
Permalink
