SUKAATO's Hypomnema

20241027221847-Uncertainty_in_Logical_Pragmatics

3 min read

Uncertainty in Logical Pragmatics

From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic

A typical problem of logical pragmatics is that in a given argument, various important factors of the context of dialogue can be unclear, vague, ambiguous, and generally problematic to pin down. Or they may simply not be known, […].

A central problem in logical pragmatics (refer to 20241027154812-What_is_Logical_Pragmatics) is how the context of a given dialogue affects the utility of the proposition(s) found in that dialogue (Walton 2008, 2). Evaluating the dialogue in lieu of its context requires discerning or resolving the following (Ibid):

  • Lack of clarity
  • Vagueness
  • Ambiguity And other elements in the text that may require that context. Otherwise, a lack of context may reduce our ability to resolve these elements.

Hence,

From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic

Before an argument, or what looks like an argument, can be evaluated as strong or weak, good or bad, it may be a non-trivial job to pin down just what the argument is, or may be taken to be.

Once one figures out the argument, subsequently one must evaluate the argument in terms of what purpose or function it fulfills rather than simply in terms of the relationship between true and false propositions, i.e. rather than simply in terms of (semantic) logical theory (Ibid):

From “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue¨ in Informal Logic

From the pragmatic point of view, any particular argument should be seen as being advanced in the context of a particular dialogue setting. Sensitivity to the special features of different contexts of a dialogue is a requirement for the reasoned analysis of an argument.

It’s only after doing so that one can move on to (semantic) logical analysis of the argument, as the requirement of the latter, i.e. of “reasoned analysis of¨ the “argument,¨ is the logical pragmatics.

To sum up, the logical pragmatic process looks like the following:

flowchart TD
A --> B --> C
subgraph id1 ["logical pragmatics"]
A["interpretation of purpose of dialogue"]
B["resolution of vagueness and ambiguity"]
C["evaluation of argument in dialogue"]
end

What is being evaluated?

What is the being evaluated about the argument in the dialogue under logical pragmatics? It still has not been made clear here beyond a general “fitness to purpose.¨

semantics semantic logical_pragmatics logical_theory semantic_logical_theory logical_semantics argumentation_theory vagueness ambiguity uncertainty communication_theory informal_logic logic reason reasoning evaluation

bibliography

  • “Argument as Reasoned Dialogue.” In Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., 2–37. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Graph View