Argumentation, R. Pavilionis’s Meaning Continuum and the Kitchen Debate
Theory of Knowledge
Elena Lisanyuk
Published 2015-10-07
https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.2015.88.8481
PDF

Keywords

abstract argumentation frameworks
cognitive diversity
Pavilionis’s meaning continuum
the Kitchen Debate

How to Cite

Lisanyuk E. (2015). Argumentation, R. Pavilionis’s Meaning Continuum and the Kitchen Debate. Problemos, 88(88), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.2015.88.8481

Abstract

In this paper, I propose a logical-cognitive approach to argumentation and advocate an idea that argumentation presupposes that intelligent agents engaged in it are cognitively diverse. My approach to argumentation allows drawing distinctions between justification, conviction and persuasion as its different kinds. In justification agents seek to verify weak or strong coherency of an agent’s position in a dialogue. In conviction they argue to modify their partner’s position by means of demonstrating weak or strong cogency of their positions before a ‘rational judge’. My approach to argumentation employs a ‘light’ version of Dung’s abstract argumentative frameworks. It is based on Stich’s idea of agents’ cognitive diversity the epistemic aspect of which is argued to be close to Pavilionis’s conception of meaning continuum. To illustrate my contributions I use an example based on the Kitchen Debate (1959) between Khrushchev and Nixon.

PDF

Please read the Copyright Notice in Journal Policy