Abstract
In dialogical logic, meaning and logical notions arise from argumentative interactions between the proponent of a thesis and the opponent, who challenges that thesis. Dialogical logic was initially designed for intuitionistic logic. Then, it took a pluralistic turn. However, except for rare exceptions, most of its developments are confined to deductive reasoning. Considering that they may constitute a unified framework for argumentation, what could be the contribution of dialogues in the author’s understanding of abductive reasoning is discussed. In particular, abduction is not always sentential and sometimes involves hypotheses regarding inferential considerations, for example, the logic underlying the validity of certain principles. In dialogical logic, this issue can be tackled at different levels, namely, the play level by means of which meaning is defined, and the strategy level by means of which validity is defined. Based on an interpretation of already existing dialogical systems, the aim is to put forward different kinds of abductions in which hypotheses are about the rules of interactions, from which arise the inferential level and logical notions such as validity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3907-7
Barés, C., & Fontaine, M. (2021a). Between sentential and model-based abductions: A dialogical approach. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 29(4), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzz033
Barés, C., & Fontaine, M. (2021b). Defeasibility and non-monotonicity in dialogues. Journal of Applied Logics – IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 8(2), 329–353.
Barés Gómez, C., & Fontaine, M. (2017). Argumentation and abduction in dialogical logic. In L. Magnani & T. Bertolotti (eds) Springer handbook of model-based science (pp. 295–314). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4_14
Batens, D. (2000). A survey of inconsistency-adaptive logics. In D. Batens, C. Mortensen, G. Priest, & J.-P. Van Bendegem (Eds.), Frontiers of paraconsistent logic (pp. 49–73). KC Publications.
Batens, D. (2007). A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. Logica Universalis, 1, 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-006-0012-5
Beirlaen, M., & Fontaine, M. (2016). Inconsistency-adaptive dialogical logic. Logica Universalis, 10, 99–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-016-0139-y
Blackburn, P. (2001). Modal logic as dialogical logic. Synthese, 127, 57–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010358017657
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Harvard University Press.
Clerbout, N. (2014). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43, 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9289-z
Dutilh-Novaes, C. (2015). Dialogical, multi-agent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica, 69(4), 587–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12118
Estrada-González, L. (2012). Remarks on some general features of abduction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 23(1), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exs005
Fontaine, M., & Barés Gómez, C. (2019). Conjecturing hypotheses in a dialogical logic for abduction. In D. Gabbay, L. Magnani, W. Park, & A.-V. Pietarinen (eds) Natural arguments. A tribute to John Woods (pp. 379–414). College Publications.
Gabbay, D., & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction. Insight and trials. Elsevier.
Gigerenzer, G. (2005). I think, therefore I Err. Social Research, 72(1), 195–218.
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press.
Keiff, L. (2004). Heuristique formelle et logiques modales non-normales. Philosophia Scientiae, 8(2), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.562
Keiff, L. (2007). Le Pluralisme dialogique – Approches dynamiques de l’argumentation formelle. PhD Thesis. Université Lille 3–Charles-de-Gaulle.
Lorenz, K. (2001). Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. Synthese, 127, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010367416884
Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Wissenschqftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition: The epistemological and eco-cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03631-6
Magnani, L. (2017). The abductive structure of scientific creativity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59256-5
Magnani, L. (2019). AlphaGo, locked strategies, and eco-cognitive openness. Philosophies, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies401000
Nersessian, N. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian & P. Tagard (eds) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4813-3_1
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.
Rahman, S., & Carnielli, W. (2000). The dialogical approach to paraconsistency. Synthese, 125, 201–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005294523930
Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.) Logic, thought and action (pp. 259–408). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_17
Rahman, S., & Rückert, H. (eds) (2001a). New perspectives in dialogical logic. Synthese 127.
Rahman, S., & Rückert, H. (2001b). Dialogical connexive logic. Synthese, 127, 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010351931769
Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., & Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent reasoning or equality in action – A Plaidoyer for the play level. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91149-6
Redmond, J., & Fontaine, M. (2011). How to play dialogues. College Publications.
Woods, J. (2004). The death of argument: Fallacies in agent-based reasoning. Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3
Woods, J. (2013). Errors of reasoning. Naturalizing the logic of inference. College Publications.
Woods, J. (2017). Reorienting the logic of abduction. In L. Magnani & T. Bertolotti (eds) Springer handbook of model-based science (pp. 137–150). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4_6
Acknowledgments
The authors warmly thank the editors, Lorenzo Magnani and Atocha Aliseda, for their help and their perspicacious comments. Both authors acknowledge the financial support of the projects “Abducción y Diagnóstico Médico. Interrogación e Hipótesis en la Causalidad Científica” held by Cristina Barés (US-1381050, Proyectos de I + D + i en el marco del Programa Operativo FEDER Andalucía 2014-2020. Junta de Andalucía); and “El proceso inferencial como proceso informacional: dinámica lógica de la información y la representación del discurso y el diálogo” held by Francisco Salguero (PAIDI 2020: Proyectos I + D + i financiados por la Junta de Andalucía (Referencia P20_01140)).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Barés Gómez, C., Fontaine, M. (2023). Abduction and Dialogues. In: Magnani, L. (eds) Handbook of Abductive Cognition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10135-9_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10135-9_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10134-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10135-9
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering