FORMALIZING DIALECTICAL REASONING FOR COMPROMISE-BASED JUSTIFICATION

Hiroyuki Kido, Katsumi Nitta, Masahito Kurihara, Daisuke Katagami

2011

Abstract

Chinese traditional philosophy regards dialectics as a style of reasoning that focuses on contradictions and how to resolve them, transcend them or find the truth in both. Compromise is considered to be one possible way to resolve conflicts dialectically. In this paper, we formalize dialectical reasoning as a way for deriving compromise. Both the definition of the notion of compromise and the algorithm for dialectical reasoning are proposed on an abstract complete lattice. We prove that the dialectical reasoning is sound and complete with respect to the compromise. We propose the concrete algorithm for dialectical reasoning characterized by definite clausal language and generalized subsumption. The algorithm is proved to be sound with respect to the compromise. Furthermore, we expand an argumentation system to handle compromise arguments, and illustrate that an agent bringing up a compromise argument realizes a compromise based justification towards argument-based deliberation.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., and Moraitis, P. (2008). A general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In Proc. of The 4th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2007), pages 1-17.
  2. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Prakken, H. (2006). Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In Proc. of The First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pages 247-258.
  3. Buntine, W. (1988). Generalized subsumption and its applications to induction and redundancy. Artificial Intelligence, 36:146-176.
  4. Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M. E., and Marcos, J. (2007). Logics of Formal Inconsistency, volume 14, pages 1-93. Springer, handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd edition.
  5. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its funedamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357.
  6. Emden, M. H. V. and Kowalski, R. A. (1976). The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 23:733-742.
  7. Gordon, T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game - An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  8. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.
  9. Nienhuys-Cheng, S.-H. and de Wolf, R. (1997). Foundation of Inductive Logic Programming. Springer.
  10. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently ... and Why. FREE PRESS.
  11. Prakken, H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  12. Prakken, H. (1999). Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report). In Proc. of The 4th ModelAge Workshop 'Formal Models of Agents', pages 202-215.
  13. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25-75.
  14. Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132.
  15. Rescher, N. (2007). Dialectics - A Classical Approach to Inquiry. ontos verlag.
  16. Routley, R. and Meyer, R. K. (1976). Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world. Studies in East European Thought, 16(1-2):1-25.
  17. Sabre, R. M. (1991). An alternative logical framework for dialectical reasoning in the social and policy sciences. Theory and Decision, 30(3):187-211.
  18. Sawamura, H., Yamashita, M., and Umeda, Y. (2003). Applying dialectic agents to argumentation in ecommerce. Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3- 4):297-313.
  19. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13:265-274.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kido H., Nitta K., Kurihara M. and Katagami D. (2011). FORMALIZING DIALECTICAL REASONING FOR COMPROMISE-BASED JUSTIFICATION . In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8425-40-9, pages 355-363. DOI: 10.5220/0003181903550363


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart11,
author={Hiroyuki Kido and Katsumi Nitta and Masahito Kurihara and Daisuke Katagami},
title={FORMALIZING DIALECTICAL REASONING FOR COMPROMISE-BASED JUSTIFICATION},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,},
year={2011},
pages={355-363},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003181903550363},
isbn={978-989-8425-40-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,
TI - FORMALIZING DIALECTICAL REASONING FOR COMPROMISE-BASED JUSTIFICATION
SN - 978-989-8425-40-9
AU - Kido H.
AU - Nitta K.
AU - Kurihara M.
AU - Katagami D.
PY - 2011
SP - 355
EP - 363
DO - 10.5220/0003181903550363