College Publications logo   College Publications title  
View Basket
Homepage Contact page
   
 
AiML
Academia Brasileira de Filosofia
Algorithmics
Cadernos de Lógica e Computação
Cadernos de Lógica e Filosofia
Cahiers de Logique et d'Epistemologie
Communication, Mind and Language
Computing
Cuadernos de lógica, Epistemología y Lenguaje
DEON
Dialogues
Economics
Encyclopaedia of Logic
Filosofia
Handbooks
Historia Logicae
IfColog series in Computational Logic
IfColog Lecture series
IfColog Proceedings
Journal of Applied Logics - IfCoLog Journal
About
Editorial Board
Scope of the Journal
Submissions
Forthcoming papers
Journals
Landscapes
Logics for New-Generation AI
Logic and Law
Logic and Semiotics
Logic PhDs
Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science
The Logica Yearbook
Neural Computing and Artificial Intelligence
Philosophy
Research
The SILFS series
Studies in Logic
Studies in Talmudic Logic
Systems
Texts in Logic and Reasoning
Texts in Mathematics
Tributes
Other
Digital Downloads
Information for authors
About us
Search for Books
 



Forthcoming papers


Back

Defeasibility and Non-Monotonicity in Dialogues

Assertion and Proof special issue

Cristina Barés Gómez and Matthieu Fontaine

Although dialogical logic was originally defined to model deductive reason-
ing, in particular intuitionistic logic, it may be useful to model other kinds of inferences. Dialogical logic should include the possibility of involving some kind
of defeasibility, whether it be at the play level or at the level of the strategies.
Whereas the former only involves the application of rules of interactions, the latter is concerned with the notion of validity. Is it possible to introduce defeasibility in Dialogical Logic? According to Dutilh Novaes ([7]), monotonicity and non-defeasibility are consequences of a strategic requisite inherent to dialogical games. But, according to Rahman et al. ([18]), this position relies on a confusion between the play and the strategy levels. Actually, the rules of dialogical games do not involve any strategic component. As a consequence, there is room for defeasibility and non-monotonicity in dialogues. We finally discuss this possibility in the context of recent developments of adaptive dialogical logics, in particular IAD of Beirlaen and Fontaine ([3]), and put forward a distinction between a notion of defeasible move defined at the play level and a notion of dialogical non-monotonicity defined at the strategy level.







© 2005–2022 College Publications / VFH webmaster