Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Derivability | Lorenzen | Berka I 269 Derivability/Lorenzen: derivability is equivalent to the existence of a profit strategy. In the semantic tableau with the seclusion. Heyting's formalization is dialogically complete. I.e. every statement which is valid in the dialogical sense is derivable and vice versa.(1) >Validity, >Semantic Tableau. 1. P. Lorenzen, Ein dialogisches Konstruktivitätskriterium, in: Infinitistic Methods, (1961), 193-200 |
Lorn I P. Lorenzen Constructive Philosophy Cambridge 1987 Berka I Karel Berka Lothar Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin 1983 |
| Implication | Lorenzen | 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. Cf. Brandom: >commitment, >Scorekeeping model. 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.(1) 1. P. Lorenzen, Ein dialogisches Konstruktivitätskriterium, in: Infinitistic Methods, (1961), 193-200 |
Lorn I P. Lorenzen Constructive Philosophy Cambridge 1987 Berka I Karel Berka Lothar Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin 1983 |
| Validity | Lorenzen | Berka I 268 Definition logical validity/dialogical logic/Lorenzen: validity consists in the existence of a strategy for the proponent P, in which he only has to claim prime formulas which have been previously claimed by O. Then the tableau is closed.(1) >Dialogical logic, >Logic, >Validity, >Provability, >Semantic tableaux. 1. P. Lorenzen, Ein dialogisches Konstruktivitätskriterium, in: Infinitistic Methods, (1961), 193-200 |
Lorn I P. Lorenzen Constructive Philosophy Cambridge 1987 Berka I Karel Berka Lothar Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin 1983 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.