Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
argumentation, context, decision, goals, rationality, strategic manoeuvring, theory of rational choice
Start Date
22-5-2013 9:00 AM
End Date
25-5-2013 5:00 PM
Abstract
From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some promising results, this approach remains underdeveloped in argumentation theories, mostly because it is assumed to be merely descriptive. This assumption is mistaken: considering arguments as the product of decisions brings into play various normative models of rational choice. The challenge is rather to reconcile strategic rationality with other normative constraints relevant for argumentation, such as inferential validity and dialectical appropriateness.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Steven W. Patterson, Commentary on: Fabio Paglieri's "Argumentation, decision and rationality"
Reader's Reactions
Steven W. Patterson, Commentary on: Fabio Paglieri's "Argumentation, decision and rationality" (May 2013)
Included in
Argumentation, decision and rationality
University of Windsor
From a decision theoretic perspective, arguments stem from decisions made by arguers. Despite some promising results, this approach remains underdeveloped in argumentation theories, mostly because it is assumed to be merely descriptive. This assumption is mistaken: considering arguments as the product of decisions brings into play various normative models of rational choice. The challenge is rather to reconcile strategic rationality with other normative constraints relevant for argumentation, such as inferential validity and dialectical appropriateness.
