Argumentation and Requirement of Consistency
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2016 |
| Type | Appeared in Conference without Proceedings |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| 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: |