On answering accusations in controversies

Accusations are a very frequent type of speech act both in everyday life and in formal controversies, and answering accusations is a sophisticated type of linguistic practice well worth analysing from a pragmatic point of view. In my paper I shall first describe some basic properties of accusations and characteristic types of reactions to accusations, i. e. denying the alleged fact, making excuses, and giving justifications. I then go on to describe some fundamental functions of accusations in controversies. Using the basic patterns of accusations and reactions to accusations as an object of comparison, I then analyse some relevant exchanges from historical controversies (l6th to 18th century), among them famous polemical interactions like the Hobbes-Bramhall controversy, but also less well-known debates from the fields of medicine and theology. The present paper is both a contribution to the theory of controversy and to the pragmatic history of controversies. Keywords: historical pragmatics, theory of controversy, ad hominem moves, dynamics of controvers

Reasons, rationality and preferences

The theory of choice receives formal treatment in decision theory, game theory and substantial parts of economics. However there is cause for concern that the formal treatment of the subject has advanced beyond the substantive grounds on which it relies. For, the formal theories fundamentally rely on a concept of preference, which is itself lacking a viable substantive interpretation. Indeed the challenges to the substantive interpretation of ‘preference’ threaten to undermine the standard arguments used to justify the completeness and transitivity conditions on which Preference Theories rely. This discussion will explore whether a conception of rationality, anchored in a larger conception of practical reasoning, can justify the completeness and transitivity conditions. Specifically, this dissertation will draw on recent developments in philosophy of law, action theory and ethics to enumerate a conception of practical reasoning that takes reasons to be the basic normative concept. It will then seek to offer an account of rationality that is distinct from, but complementary to, the role of reasons. And from this foundation develop an account of preferences that includes many of the characteristics of standard accounts, yet is situated within this broader context. From this vantage point, the discussion will explore possible justifications for the completeness and transitivity conditions. Ultimately, it will be argued that both can be justified – though with different force – in specified domains. While the discussion will primarily focus on the justification of the completeness and transitivity conditions, it is in part motivated by the goal of exploring the connections between the treatment of choice in the distinct fields associated with Preference Theories and action theory broadly defined. In so doing, the hope is to suggest that there is promise in drawing together formal and substantive treatments of choice which is deserving of greater attention

Probability and nonclassical logic

Classical tautologies have probability. Classical contradictions have probability. These familiar features reflect a connection between standard probability theory and classical logic. In contexts in which classical logic is questioned—to deal with the paradoxes of self-reference, or vague propositions, for the purposes of scientific theory or metaphysical anti-realism—we must equally question standard probability theory. Section 1 covers the intended interpretation of ‘nonclassical logic’ and ‘probability’. Section 2 reviews the connection between classical logic and classical probability. Section 3 briefly reviews salient aspects of nonclassical logic, laying out a couple of simple examples to fix ideas. Section 4 explores modifications of probability theory. The variations laid down will be motivated initially by formal analogies to the classical setting. In section 5, however, we look at two foundational justifications for the presentations of ‘nonclassical probabilities’ that are arrived at. Sections 6-7 describe extensions of the nonclassical framework: to conditionalization and decision theory in particular. Section 8 will consider some alternative approaches, and section 9 evaluates progress

Recommending the Most Encompassing Opposing and Endorsing Arguments in Debates

Arguments are essential objects in DirectDemocracyP2P, where they can occur both in association with signatures for petitions, or in association with other debated decisions, such as bug sorting by importance. The arguments of a signer on a given issue are grouped into one single justification, are classified by the type of signature (e.g., supporting or opposing), and can be subject to various types of threading. Given the available inputs, the two addressed problems are: (i) how to recommend the best justification, of a given type, to a new voter, (ii) how to recommend a compact list of justifications subsuming the majority of known arguments for (or against) an issue. We investigate solutions based on weighted bipartite graphs.Comment: 10 pages. This report was reviewed by a committee within Florida Tech during April 2014, and had been written in Summer 2013 by summarizing a set of emails exchanged during Spring 2013, concerning the DirectDemocracyP2P.net syste

Reason Maintenance - State of the Art

This paper describes state of the art in reason maintenance with a focus on its future usage in the KiWi project. To give a bigger picture of the field, it also mentions closely related issues such as non-monotonic logic and paraconsistency. The paper is organized as follows: first, two motivating scenarios referring to semantic wikis are presented which are then used to introduce the different reason maintenance techniques