2008/09/02 by Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton · 1 citation
Computer Science · Arts and Humanities · Psychology · #Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation #Rhetoric and Communication Studies #Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education #Argumentation theory #Dialogical self #Argument (complex analysis) #Epistemology #Deadlock #Psychology #Social psychology #Cognitive psychology #Computer science #Philosophy
paper · pdf · doi:10.22329/il.v28i3.594
openalex publication_date 2008/09/02 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the relationship between persuasive definition and common knowledge (propositions generally accepted and not subject to dispute in a discussion). We interpret the gap between common knowledge and persuasive definition (PD) in terms of potential disagreements: PDs are conceived as implicit arguments to win a potential conflict. Persuasive definitions are analyzed as arguments instantiating two argumentation schemes, argument from classification and argument from values, and presupposing a potential disagreement. The argumentative structure of PDs reveals different levels of disagreement, and different pos-sibilities of resolving the conflict or causing dialogical deadlock.