## Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments | |||

Author | Item | Excerpt | Meta data |
---|---|---|---|

Lorenzen, Paul Books on Amazon |
Implication | P. Lorenzen Ein dialogisches Konstruktivitätskriterium (1959) in Karel Berka/L. Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin, 1983 Berka I 267f Implication/dialogical logic/Lorenzen: here it is different than in the case of "and", "or", where only the proponent is affected by instructions. In "if, then", there are also obligations for the opponent. If P asserts a > b, the dialogical meaning of > is that P is obliged to assert also b if O on its part asserts a and defends it against P successfully. (> Brandom: determination!) Lorenzen: from this determination it follows already that P can always win an assertion of the form (A v B) u C > (A u C) v (B u C) (With statement variables A, B, ...). Spelling/(s): Lorenzen writes the main operator with a point above it: E.g. A v B u' C > A u C v' B u C. Could also be written like this, e.g. A v B u C > A u C v B u C. Winning strategy/dialogical logic/Lorenzen: one can write it as follows: O P (A v B) u C > (A u C) v (B u C) (A v B) u C ? A v B, C ? A I B (A u C) v (B u C) ? I ? A u C I B u C ? I ? A, C I B, C This corresponds precisely to the semantic tableaux of Beth. Implication/winning strategy: because the Gs of P are such that it can only assert those primacy statement which have already been asserted by O, P can obtain any statement of this form. If, on the other hand, P may be forced by O to assert a primacy statement in any other assertion which O has not yet asserted, then P will not be able to obtain every statement of the asserted form. He may not be able to prove precisely the primacy statement that has to be asserted. |
Lorn I P. Lorenzen Constructive Philosophy Cambridge 1987 Brk I K. Berka/L. Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin 1983 |

> Counter arguments against **Lorenzen**

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX file

Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-04-27