(2014) Perspectives on theory of controversies and the ethics of communication, Dordrecht, Springer.
Dialogues and monologues in logic
The dialogical framework is an approach to meaning that provides a pragmatist alternative to both the model-theoretical and the proof-theoretical semantics. However, since dialogic had and still has a bias towards antirealism, it has been quite often seen as a version of the proof-theoretical approach. The main claim of this chapter is that the proof-theoretical approach as displayed by a tableaux system of sequent calculus is, from the dialogical point of view, a monological approach and cannot provide a purely dialogical theory of meaning. Indeed, in general, validity is monological, in the sense that a winning strategy is defined independently of the moves of the Opponent. In the dialogical framework, validity should be based bottom up on a dialogical semantics.The dialogical approach to logic is not but a semantic rule-based framework where different logics could be developed, combined or compared. But are there any constraints? Can we introduce rules ad libitum to define whatever logical constant? The answer is no, for logical constants must be governed by player-independent dialogical rules. The approach of the present chapter has been influenced by Marcelo Dascal's reflections on meaning, pragmatics and dialogues. In fact, on my view the dialogical approach to logic offers a framework for developing logic as closest as possible to his own theory of meaning and soft rationality.
Rahman, S. (2014)., Dialogues and monologues in logic, in D. Riesenfeld & G. Scarafile (eds.), Perspectives on theory of controversies and the ethics of communication, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 185-198.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.