Language and argumentation in the controversy economic

This article offers an approach to the general structure of the controversy in economy. In our case we adopted a perspective to study a particular aspect of the rhetoric that comes from the context of a particular controversy: the controversy on the advantages of the free commerce between Daly and Bhagwati. It is sustained that the positions in economy present with relative frequency interest conflicts that are revealed in the dialectic one of the arguments. A proponent in open defense of the free commerce is not released of presumptions reflected in the field of the rhetoric. Reason why to include the language dimensions of the argumentation in economy has advantages for the field of the explanation and the epistemology in the social sciences.

Language and argumentation in the controversy economic

This article offers an approach to the general structure of the controversy in economy. In our case we adopted a perspective to study a particular aspect of the rhetoric that comes from the context of a particular controversy: the controversy on the advantages of the free commerce between Daly and Bhagwati. It is sustained that the positions in economy present with relative frequency interest conflicts that are revealed in the dialectic one of the arguments. A proponent in open defense of the free commerce is not released of presumptions reflected in the field of the rhetoric. Reason why to include the language dimensions of the argumentation in economy has advantages for the field of the explanation and the epistemology in the social sciences.language, argumentation, theory economics, epistemology, public choice, decision theory.

The rhetoric of economics

This article offers an approach to the general structure of the rhetoric in economy. In our case we adopted a perspective to study a particular aspect of the rhetoric that comes from the context of a particular controversy: the controversy on the advantages of the free commerce between Daly and Bhagwati. It is sustained that the positions in economy present with relative frequency interest conflicts that are revealed in the dialectic one of the arguments. A proponent in open defense of the free commerce is not released of presumptions reflected in the field of the rhetoric. Reason why to include the language dimensions of the argumentation in economy has advantages for the field of the explanation and the epistemology in the social sciences.rhetoric, language, argumentation, theory economics, epistemology, public choice, decision theory

Paretian argumentation frameworks for Pareto optimal arguments

Argument-based reasoning offers promising interaction and computation mechanisms for multi-agent negotiation and deliberation. Arguments in this context are typically statements of beliefs or actions related to agents' subjective values, preferences and so on. Consequences of such arguments can and should be evaluated using various criteria, and therefore it is desirable that semantics supports these criteria as principles for accepting arguments. This article gives an instance of Dung's abstract argumentation framework to deal with Pareto optimality, i.e. a fundamental criterion for social welfare. We show that the instance allows Dung's acceptability semantics to interpret Pareto optimal arguments, without loss of generality. We discuss the prospects of justified Pareto optimal arguments and Pareto optimal extensions

Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation

Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible Logic, in combination with standard probability calculus. It is a new element of the present approach that the exchange of arguments is analysed with game theoretical tools, yielding a prescriptive and to some extent even predictive account of the actual course of play. A brief comparison with existing argument-based dialogue approaches confirms that such a prescriptive account of the actual argumentation has been almost lacking in the approaches proposed so far

On the Relation of Informal to Formal Logic

The distinction between formal and informal logic is clarified as a prelude to considering their ideal relation. Aristotle\u27s syllogistic describes forms of valid inference, and is in that sense a formal logic. Yet the square of opposition and rules of middle term distribution of positive or negative propositions in an argument\u27s premises and conclusion are standardly received as devices of so-called informal logic and critical reasoning. I propose a more exact criterion for distinguishing between formal and informal logic, and then defend a model for fruitful interaction between informal and formal methods of investigating and critically assessing the logic of arguments