Argumentation and Requirement of Consistency



Year of publication 2016
Type Article in Proceedings
Conference Proceedings of The 5th Tokyo Conference on Argumentation
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Arts

Field Philosophy and religion
Keywords argumentation; consistency; requirement of consistency; theory of argumentation
Description The consistency is considered to be a fundamental requirement within any system of propositions. Inconsistencies are generally regarded as something we should avoid or refuse. If we consider an argumentation as something that has a dynamic character and what is essentially non-monotonic, for a refutation to be possible, questions arise. To what is the requirement of consistency applied? When a speaker has to be consistent? When is permissible to avoid this criterion? The goal is to present a more precise criterion of consistency. This is done by dividing an argumentation to fundamental parts which need to be internally consistent but which need not to be consistent with each other. The presented approach then extends borders of a rational discussion and makes also possible to point out (false) accusations of an inconsistency which are not useful to resolve a difference of opinion.
Related projects:

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.