Misplaced Pages

#662337

72-481: Dialogus (Latin for dialogue ) can refer to: Dialogus de oratoribus (c. 100 AD), treatise on rhetoric attributed to Tacitus Dialogus de musica (c. 11th c.), music treatise formerly attributed to Odo of Arezzo Dialogus de Scaccario (12th c.), treatise on the English Exchequer Dialogus super auctores (c. 1130), an introduction to

144-539: A body of theory and techniques for using egalitarian dialogue as a pedagogical tool. Martin Buber assigns dialogue a pivotal position in his theology . His most influential work is titled I and Thou . Buber cherishes and promotes dialogue not as some purposive attempt to reach conclusions or express mere points of view, but as the very prerequisite of authentic relationship between man and man, and between man and God . Buber's thought centres on "true dialogue", which

216-471: A communication tool for married couples. Both groups teach a dialogue method that helps couples learn more about each other in non-threatening postures, which helps to foster growth in the married relationship. The German philosopher and classicist Karl-Martin Dietz emphasises the original meaning of dialogue (from Greek dia-logos , i.e. 'two words'), which goes back to Heraclitus: "The logos [...] answers to

288-431: A conclusion. Defeasibility means that when additional information (new evidence or contrary arguments) is provided, the premises may be no longer lead to the conclusion ( non-monotonic reasoning ). This type of reasoning is referred to as defeasible reasoning . For instance we consider the famous Tweety example: This argument is reasonable and the premises support the conclusion unless additional information indicating that

360-481: A group of philosophical arguments that according to Nikolas Kompridis employ a disclosive approach, to reveal features of a wider ontological or cultural-linguistic understanding—a "world", in a specifically ontological sense—in order to clarify or transform the background of meaning ( tacit knowledge ) and what Kompridis has called the "logical space" on which an argument implicitly depends. While arguments attempt to show that something was, is, will be, or should be

432-489: A host of others. In the 19th century, the French returned to the original application of dialogue. The inventions of " Gyp ", of Henri Lavedan , and of others, which tell a mundane anecdote wittily and maliciously in conversation, would probably present a close analogy to the lost mimes of the early Sicilian poets. English writers including Anstey Guthrie also adopted the form, but these dialogues seem to have found less of

504-449: A necessary premise in their reasoning if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated. The missing premise is: Iron is a metal. On the other hand, a seemingly valid argument may be found to lack a premise—a "hidden assumption"—which, if highlighted, can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out

576-777: A papyrus in 1891, give some idea of their character. Plato further simplified the form and reduced it to pure argumentative conversation, while leaving intact the amusing element of character-drawing. By about 400 BC he had perfected the Socratic dialogue . All his extant writings, except the Apology and Epistles , use this form. Following Plato, the dialogue became a major literary genre in antiquity, and several important works both in Latin and in Greek were written. Soon after Plato, Xenophon wrote his own Symposium ; also, Aristotle

648-428: A philosophical exchange on a train between four people with radically different epistemological views. In the 20th century, philosophical treatments of dialogue emerged from thinkers including Mikhail Bakhtin , Paulo Freire , Martin Buber , and David Bohm . Although diverging in many details, these thinkers have proposed a holistic concept of dialogue. Educators such as Freire and Ramón Flecha have also developed

720-649: A popular following among the English than their counterparts written by French authors. The Platonic dialogue , as a distinct genre which features Socrates as a speaker and one or more interlocutors discussing some philosophical question, experienced something of a rebirth in the 20th century. Authors who have recently employed it include George Santayana , in his eminent Dialogues in Limbo (1926, 2nd ed. 1948; this work also includes such historical figures as Alcibiades , Aristippus , Avicenna , Democritus , and Dionysius

792-423: A problem area. A disciplined form of dialogue, where participants agree to follow a dialogue framework or a facilitator , enables groups to address complex shared problems. Aleco Christakis (who created structured dialogue design ) and John N. Warfield (who created science of generic design ) were two of the leading developers of this school of dialogue. The rationale for engaging structured dialogue follows

SECTION 10

#1732765968663

864-441: A related form of dialogue where a group of people talk together in order to explore their assumptions of thinking, meaning, communication, and social effects. This group consists of ten to thirty people who meet for a few hours regularly or a few continuous days. In a Bohm dialogue , dialoguers agree to leave behind debate tactics that attempt to convince and, instead, talk from their own experience on subjects that are improvised on

936-409: A type of pedagogy. Freire held that dialogued communication allowed students and teachers to learn from one another in an environment characterised by respect and equality. A great advocate for oppressed peoples, Freire was concerned with praxis—action that is informed and linked to people's values. Dialogued pedagogy was not only about deepening understanding; it was also about making positive changes in

1008-440: A valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds ) and so the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. If the conclusion, itself, is a necessary truth, it is without regard to the premises. Some examples: In the above second to last case (Some men are hawkers ...),

1080-435: A word frequently used to indicate a conclusion is used as a transition (conjunctive adverb) between independent clauses. In English the words therefore , so , because and hence typically separate the premises from the conclusion of an argument. Thus: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal is an argument because the assertion Socrates is mortal follows from the preceding statements. However, I

1152-474: Is (according to a European Union definition) "a means of mutual communication between governments and administrations including EU institutions and young people. The aim is to get young people's contribution towards the formulation of policies relevant to young peoples lives." The application of structured dialogue requires one to differentiate the meanings of discussion and deliberation. Groups such as Worldwide Marriage Encounter and Retrouvaille use dialogue as

1224-399: Is characterised by openness, honesty, and mutual commitment. The Second Vatican Council placed a major emphasis on dialogue within the church and with the world . Most of the council's documents refer to some kind of dialogue: dialogue "between the laity and their spiritual leaders" ( Lumen gentium ), dialogue with other religions ( Nostra aetate : "dialogue and collaboration with

1296-591: Is closely associated with the art of dialectic . Latin took over the word as dialogus . Dialogue as a genre in the Middle East and Asia dates back to ancient works, such as Sumerian disputations preserved in copies from the late third millennium BC, Rigvedic dialogue hymns , and the Mahabharata . In the West, Plato ( c.  427 BC – c.  348 BC) has commonly been credited with

1368-466: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Dialogue Dialogue (sometimes spelled dialog in American English ) is a written or spoken conversational exchange between two or more people, and a literary and theatrical form that depicts such an exchange. As a philosophical or didactic device, it is chiefly associated in

1440-435: Is false; in a sound argument, true premises necessitate a true conclusion. Inductive arguments , by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability. The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example,

1512-429: Is from Proto-Indo-European argu-yo- , suffixed form of arg- (to shine; white). Informal arguments as studied in informal logic , are presented in ordinary language and are intended for everyday discourse . Formal arguments are studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic logic , more commonly referred to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language . Informal logic emphasizes

SECTION 20

#1732765968663

1584-435: Is invalid. This can be done by a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under a given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation. In informal logic this is called a counter argument . The form of an argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional , and an argument form

1656-441: Is necessarily true based on its connection to our experience, while Nikolas Kompridis has suggested that there are two types of " fallible " arguments: one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure of possibility ( world disclosure ). Kompridis said that the French philosopher Michel Foucault was a prominent advocate of this latter form of philosophical argument. World-disclosing arguments are

1728-412: Is no word and no language , there can be no dialogic relations; they cannot exist among objects or logical quantities (concepts, judgments, and so forth). Dialogic relations presuppose a language, but they do not reside within the system of language. They are impossible among elements of a language. The Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire , known for developing popular education, advanced dialogue as

1800-466: Is possible. An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises. In formal logic, the validity of an argument depends not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but on whether the argument has a valid logical form . The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive:

1872-424: Is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-deductive logic include the statistical syllogism , which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction , a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. An inductive argument is said to be cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render

1944-402: Is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science . Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments can be valid , and the valid ones can be sound : in a valid argument, premises necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premises is false and the conclusion

2016-714: Is said to have written several philosophical dialogues in Plato's style (of which only fragments survive). In the 2nd century CE, Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote the Dialogue with Trypho , which was a discourse between Justin representing Christianity and Trypho representing Judaism. Another Christian apologetic dialogue from the time was the Octavius , between the Christian Octavius and pagan Caecilius. In

2088-537: Is sound when the argument is valid and argument's premise(s) is/are true, therefore the conclusion is true. An inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the probability of the premises. For example, given that the military budget of the United States is the largest in the world (premise=true), then it is probable that it will remain so for the next 10 years (conclusion=true). Arguments that involve predictions are inductive since

2160-520: Is the cause of much difficulty in thinking critically about claims. There are several reasons for this difficulty. Explanations and arguments are often studied in the field of information systems to help explain user acceptance of knowledge-based systems . Certain argument types may fit better with personality traits to enhance acceptance by individuals. Fallacies are types of argument or expressions which are held to be of an invalid form or contain errors in reasoning. One type of fallacy occurs when

2232-412: Is valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is a logical truth . A statement form which is logically true is also said to be a valid statement form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is true under all interpretations . A statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a) showing that it is a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure . The corresponding conditional of

Dialogus - Misplaced Pages Continue

2304-415: The logical , the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. In logic , an argument is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language , and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument

2376-645: The rhetorical perspective, the argument is constitutively linked with the context, in particular with the time and place in which the argument is located. From this perspective, the argument is evaluated not just by two parties (as in a dialectical approach) but also by an audience. In both dialectic and rhetoric, arguments are used not through formal but through natural language. Since classical antiquity, philosophers and rhetoricians have developed lists of argument types in which premises and conclusions are connected in informal and defeasible ways. The Latin root arguere (to make bright, enlighten, make known, prove, etc.)

2448-634: The Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land" (Ibid., pp. 6–30; dated 1260), while in other writings he used a question and answer format, without the narrative scenario, such as in "Questions and Answers about Embracing the Lotus Sutra" (Ibid., pp. 55–67, possibly from 1263). The sage or person answering the questions was understood as the author. Two French writers of eminence borrowed

2520-475: The East, in 13th century Japan, dialogue was used in important philosophical works. In the 1200s, Nichiren Daishonin wrote some of his important writings in dialogue form, describing a meeting between two characters in order to present his argument and theory, such as in "Conversation between a Sage and an Unenlightened Man" (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin 1: pp. 99–140, dated around 1256), and "On Establishing

2592-712: The Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. A prominent 19th-century example of literary dialogue was Landor 's Imaginary Conversations (1821–1828). In Germany, Wieland adopted this form for several important satirical works published between 1780 and 1799. In Spanish literature, the Dialogues of Valdés (1528) and those on Painting (1633) by Vincenzo Carducci are celebrated. Italian writers of collections of dialogues, following Plato's example, include Torquato Tasso (1586), Galileo (1632), Galiani (1770), Leopardi (1825), and

2664-462: The West with the Socratic dialogue as developed by Plato , but antecedents are also found in other traditions including Indian literature . The term dialogue stems from the Greek διάλογος ( dialogos , ' conversation ' ); its roots are διά ( dia , ' through ' ) and λόγος ( logos , ' speech, reason ' ). The first extant author who uses the term is Plato, in whose works it

2736-479: The Younger as speakers). Also Edith Stein and Iris Murdoch used the dialogue form. Stein imagined a dialogue between Edmund Husserl (phenomenologist) and Thomas Aquinas (metaphysical realist). Murdoch included not only Socrates and Alcibiades as interlocutors in her work Acastos: Two Platonic Dialogues (1986), but featured a young Plato himself as well. More recently Timothy Williamson wrote Tetralogue ,

2808-410: The above argument and explanation require knowing the generalities that a) fleas often cause itching, and b) that one often scratches to relieve itching. The difference is in the intent: an argument attempts to settle whether or not some claim is true, and an explanation attempts to provide understanding of the event. Note, that by subsuming the specific event (of Fred's cat scratching) as an instance of

2880-408: The abstract structure of the most common types of natural arguments. A typical example is the argument from expert opinion, shown below, which has two premises and a conclusion. Each scheme may be associated with a set of critical questions, namely criteria for assessing dialectically the reasonableness and acceptability of an argument. The matching critical questions are the standard ways of casting

2952-535: The acceptance of its premises) with rules of material inference, governing how a premise can support a given conclusion (whether it is reasonable or not to draw a specific conclusion from a specific description of a state of affairs). Argumentation schemes have been developed to describe and assess the acceptability or the fallaciousness of defeasible arguments. Argumentation schemes are stereotypical patterns of inference, combining semantic-ontological relations with types of reasoning and logical axioms and representing

Dialogus - Misplaced Pages Continue

3024-414: The argument into doubt. Argument by analogy may be thought of as argument from the particular to particular. An argument by analogy may use a particular truth in a premise to argue towards a similar particular truth in the conclusion. For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because

3096-399: The case is an exception comes in. If Tweety is a penguin, the inference is no longer justified by the premise. Defeasible arguments are based on generalizations that hold only in the majority of cases, but are subject to exceptions and defaults. In order to represent and assess defeasible reasoning, it is necessary to combine the logical rules (governing the acceptance of a conclusion based on

3168-431: The case, explanations try to show why or how something is or will be. If Fred and Joe address the issue of whether or not Fred's cat has fleas, Joe may state: "Fred, your cat has fleas. Observe, the cat is scratching right now." Joe has made an argument that the cat has fleas. However, if Joe asks Fred, "Why is your cat scratching itself?" the explanation, "... because it has fleas." provides understanding. Both

3240-538: The classics by Conrad of Hirsau Dialogus creaturarum (c. 1480), collection of Latin fables Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Dialogus . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dialogus&oldid=1140594354 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description

3312-590: The concept of dialogical leadership, starting with a chapter in the 2003 book The Organization as Story . Moral dialogues are social processes which allow societies or communities to form new shared moral understandings. Moral dialogues have the capacity to modify the moral positions of a sufficient number of people to generate widespread approval for actions and policies that previously had little support or were considered morally inappropriate by many. Communitarian philosopher Amitai Etzioni has developed an analytical framework which—modelling historical examples—outlines

3384-410: The conclusion are truth bearers or "truth-candidates", each capable of being either true or false (but not both). These truth values bear on the terminology used with arguments. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny

3456-525: The conclusion because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises. Based on the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily (with certainty). Given premises that A=B and B=C, then the conclusion follows necessarily that A=C. Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments. For example, consider the argument that because bats can fly (premise=true), and all flying creatures are birds (premise=false), therefore bats are birds (conclusion=false). If we assume

3528-405: The conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be true or false. Logic seeks to discover the forms that make arguments valid. A form of argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument in which the premises are true. Since the validity of an argument depends on its form, an argument can be shown invalid by showing that its form

3600-596: The counter-example follows the same logical form as the previous argument, (Premise 1: "Some X are Y ." Premise 2: "Some Y are Z ." Conclusion: "Some X are Z .") in order to demonstrate that whatever hawkers may be, they may or may not be rich, in consideration of the premises as such. (See also: Existential import ). The forms of argument that render deductions valid are well-established, however some invalid arguments can also be persuasive depending on their construction ( inductive arguments , for example). (See also: Formal fallacy and Informal fallacy ). An argument

3672-468: The followers of other religions"), dialogue with other Christians ( Unitatis redintegratio : "fraternal dialogue on points of doctrine and the more pressing pastoral problems of our time"), dialogue with modern society ( Gaudium et spes : "the rightful betterment of this world ... cannot be realized, ... apart from sincere and prudent dialogue"), and dialogue with political authorities ( Dignitatis humanae : "[in] dialogue ... men explain to one another

SECTION 50

#1732765968663

3744-669: The foundational texts of the Western canon . Institutions that continue to follow a version of this model include the Great Books Foundation , Shimer College in Chicago, and St. John's College in Annapolis and Santa Fe. Egalitarian dialogue is a concept in dialogic learning . It may be defined as a dialogue in which contributions are considered according to the validity of their reasoning, instead of according to

3816-462: The front door except the milkman; therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. The hidden assumptions are: (1) the milkman was not the murderer and (2) the murderer has left (3) by a door and (4) not by e.g. a window or through an 'ole in 't roof and (5) there are no other doors than the front or back door. The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with

3888-424: The future is uncertain. An inductive argument is said to be strong or weak. If the premises of an inductive argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true? If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak. A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument is uncogent. The military budget argument example is a strong, cogent argument. Non-deductive logic

3960-545: The general rule that "animals scratch themselves when they have fleas", Joe will no longer wonder why Fred's cat is scratching itself. Arguments address problems of belief, explanations address problems of understanding. In the argument above, the statement, "Fred's cat has fleas" is up for debate (i.e. is a claim), but in the explanation, the statement, "Fred's cat has fleas" is assumed to be true (unquestioned at this time) and just needs explaining . Arguments and explanations largely resemble each other in rhetorical use. This

4032-495: The issue at hand; and, closure through the establishment of a new shared moral understanding. Moral dialogues allow people of a given community to determine what is morally acceptable to a majority of people within the community. Logical argument Arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. The process of crafting or delivering arguments, argumentation , can be studied from three main perspectives:

4104-586: The observation that a rigorous bottom-up democratic form of dialogue must be structured to ensure that a sufficient variety of stakeholders represents the problem system of concern, and that their voices and contributions are equally balanced in the dialogic process. Structured dialogue is employed for complex problems including peacemaking (e.g., Civil Society Dialogue project in Cyprus ) and indigenous community development., as well as government and social policy formulation. In one deployment, structured dialogue

4176-462: The persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments , the quality of hypotheses in retroduction , or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting. In dialectics, and also in a more colloquial sense, an argument can be conceived as a social and verbal means of trying to resolve, or at least contend with, a conflict or difference of opinion that has arisen or exists between two or more parties. For

4248-404: The premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily, and it is a valid argument. In terms of validity, deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. An argument is valid, if and only if (iff) it is impossible in all possible worlds for the premises to be true and the conclusion false; validity is about what is possible; it is concerned with how the premises and conclusion relate and what

4320-419: The question of the world as a whole and how everything in it is connected. Logos is the one principle at work, that gives order to the manifold in the world." For Dietz, dialogue means "a kind of thinking, acting and speaking, which the logos "passes through"" Therefore, talking to each other is merely one part of "dialogue". Acting dialogically means directing someone's attention to another one and to reality at

4392-451: The reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal. Other kinds of arguments may have different or additional standards of validity or justification. For example, philosopher Charles Taylor said that so-called transcendental arguments are made up of a "chain of indispensability claims" that attempt to show why something

SECTION 60

#1732765968663

4464-452: The reoccurring components of moral dialogues. Elements of moral dialogues include: establishing a moral baseline; sociological dialogue starters which initiate the process of developing new shared moral understandings; the linking of multiple groups' discussions in the form of "megalogues"; distinguishing the distinct attributes of the moral dialogue (apart from rational deliberations or culture wars); dramatisation to call widespread attention to

4536-507: The same time. Against this background and together with Thomas Kracht, Karl-Martin Dietz developed what he termed " dialogical leadership " as a form of organisational management. In several German enterprises and organisations it replaced the traditional human resource management, e.g. in the German drugstore chain dm-drogerie markt . Separately, and earlier to Thomas Kracht and Karl-Martin Dietz, Rens van Loon published multiple works on

4608-446: The spot. In his influential works, Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin provided an extralinguistic methodology for analysing the nature and meaning of dialogue: Dialogic relations have a specific nature: they can be reduced neither to the purely logical (even if dialectical) nor to the purely linguistic ( compositional - syntactic ) They are possible only between complete utterances of various speaking subjects... Where there

4680-421: The status or position of power of those who make them. Structured dialogue represents a class of dialogue practices developed as a means of orienting the dialogic discourse toward problem understanding and consensual action. Whereas most traditional dialogue practices are unstructured or semi-structured, such conversational modes have been observed as insufficient for the coordination of multiple perspectives in

4752-513: The study of argumentation ; formal logic emphasizes implication and inference . Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. The rational structure—the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion—is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must be made explicit by analysis. There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best known of which are "deductive" and "inductive." An argument has one or more premises but only one conclusion. Each premise and

4824-546: The systematic use of dialogue as an independent literary form. Ancient sources indicate, however, that the Platonic dialogue had its foundations in the mime , which the Sicilian poets Sophron and Epicharmus had cultivated half a century earlier. These works, admired and imitated by Plato, have not survived and we have only the vaguest idea of how they may have been performed. The Mimes of Herodas , which were found in

4896-595: The title of Lucian's most famous collection; both Fontenelle (1683) and Fénelon (1712) prepared Dialogues des morts ("Dialogues of the Dead"). Contemporaneously, in 1688, the French philosopher Nicolas Malebranche published his Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion , thus contributing to the genre's revival in philosophic circles. In English non-dramatic literature the dialogue did not see extensive use until Berkeley employed it, in 1713, for his treatise, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous . His contemporary,

4968-462: The truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong ), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true. Cogency can be considered inductive logic 's analogue to deductive logic 's " soundness ". Despite its name, mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. The lack of deductive validity is known as the problem of induction . In modern argumentation theories, arguments are regarded as defeasible passages from premises to

5040-444: The truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth"). However, in the English translations of these texts, "dialogue" was used to translate two Latin words with distinct meanings, colloquium ("discussion") and dialogus ("dialogue"). The choice of terminology appears to have been strongly influenced by Buber's thought. The physicist David Bohm originated

5112-480: The world: to make it better. Dialogue is used as a practice in a variety of settings, from education to business . Influential theorists of dialogal education include Paulo Freire and Ramon Flecha . In the United States, an early form of dialogic learning emerged in the Great Books movement of the early to mid-20th century, which emphasised egalitarian dialogues in small classes as a way of understanding

5184-538: Was thirsty and therefore I drank is not an argument, despite its appearance. It is not being claimed that I drank is logically entailed by I was thirsty . The therefore in this sentence indicates for that reason not it follows that . Often an argument is invalid or weak because there is a missing premise—the supply of which would make it valid or strong. This is referred to as an elliptical or enthymematic argument (see also Enthymeme § Syllogism with an unstated premise ). Speakers and writers will often leave out

#662337