From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun Dec  1 13:06:00 EST 1991
Article 1685 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is dialectical thought an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <5724@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Nov 91 20:02:06 GMT
References: <5RPRBB5w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 9

In article <5RPRBB5w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>On the surface I can see an obvious reason why persons with an
>interest in AI would tend to ignore the dialectic.  It can't be
>easily formalized.  If you take an "argument" or a "discourse" as
>your unit of analysis, it is not possible to write down formal
>rules ...

It may surprise you, but discourse is a real growth area in
AI right now.  (Or at least that's how it looks from Edinburgh.)


