Abstract
In the previous chapter, we distinguished betweencore beliefs, which proponents give up only reluctantly, and auxiliary beliefs, beyond the debate’s core, which proponents are much more willing to alter. This distinction translated into a modifiedupdate mechanism, namely, thelexicographic closest coherent updating. We have studied the effect of this new updating procedure while retaining the simplerandom argumentation mechanism. Clearly, core beliefs can also be taken into account when putting forward new arguments. Thus, we may devise variousargumentation mechanisms which are sensitive to the distinction between core and auxiliary beliefs. In this chapter, we examine two such mechanisms. The first one is derived from the most effective argumentation strategy studied so far. Themultiple core convert strategy tries to convert as many opponents as possible while explicitly targeting their core convictions. The design of the second argumentation mechanism we consider in this chapter is motivated by our previous observation that a core’s robustness exerts a significant influence upon the future evolution of the proponent’s position. This suggests to maximize, as an argumentation rule, the robustness of one’s core position.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Due to limited computational resources, proponents actually consider at maximum 100 different potential arguments.
- 2.
This result is robust against decreasing the reference density, for example, to 0.05.
- 3.
The fluctuations at high degrees of justification indicate that the sample is not sufficiently large: There are only relatively few very robust core positions. They dominate the overall picture (at high degrees of justification) and may introduce a bias in case they exhibit, contingently, extremedurability values.
- 4.
Formally, the core density of a dialectical structure τ with a sentence pool of size 2n and 2n′ core sentences (n′ < n) equals
$${D}_{\mathrm{core}}(\tau ) = \frac{n{^\prime} -\mathrm{ lg}({\sigma{^\prime}}_{\tau })} {n{^\prime}} ,$$where σ′τ denotes the number of coherent partial positions defined on the 2n′ core sentences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Betz, G. (2013). The Consensual Dynamics of Debates with Core Argumentation. In: Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs. Synthese Library, vol 357. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4598-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4599-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)