Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
Deliberation dialogue, typology of deliberation, computational model, stasis, changing the issue
Start Date
2016 9:00 AM
End Date
2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
We present a series of realistic examples of deliberation and discuss how they can form the basis for building a typology of deliberation dialogues. The observations from our examples are used to suggest that argumentation researchers and philosophers have been thinking about deliberation in overly simplistic ways. We argue that to include all the kinds of argumentation that make up realistic deliberations, it is necessary to distinguish between different kinds of deliberations. We propose a model including a problem-solving type of deliberation based on practical reasoning, characterised by revisions of the initial issue made necessary by the agents’ increased knowledge of new circumstances.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
Hubert Marraud, Commentary on Douglas N. Walton and Alice Toniolo’s “Deliberation, Practical Reasoning and Problem-solving” (May 2016)
Deliberation, Practical Reasoning and Problem-solving
University of Windsor
We present a series of realistic examples of deliberation and discuss how they can form the basis for building a typology of deliberation dialogues. The observations from our examples are used to suggest that argumentation researchers and philosophers have been thinking about deliberation in overly simplistic ways. We argue that to include all the kinds of argumentation that make up realistic deliberations, it is necessary to distinguish between different kinds of deliberations. We propose a model including a problem-solving type of deliberation based on practical reasoning, characterised by revisions of the initial issue made necessary by the agents’ increased knowledge of new circumstances.
