What should a (good) citizen know about logic?
Abstract
Reception: October 15, 2015 Accepted: January 5, 2016 In dealing with this tricky question, I will first propose a generic response: a full citizen should be acquainted with Argumentation theory; and then, ultimately, provide a more specific answer: a good citizen should have some expertise of the theory and practice of public deliberation, as a paradigm of the so-called “civil logic”.References
ATKINSON, K., T. Bench-Capon y P. McBurney (2006). Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152: 157-206.
BELZER, M. (1987). “A logic of deliberation”. En Procds. 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
AAAI’86 Philadelphia (pp. 38-43). Merlo Park (CA): AAAI Press, I.
BENTHEM, J. (2009). One logician’s perspective on argumentation. Cogency, 1(2): 13-25.
BLAIR, J. A. (2005). Norms and function in public sphere argumentation. Informal Logic, 25(2): 139-150.
BOHMAN, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4): 400-425.
BURKHALTER, S., J. Gastil, T. Kelshaw (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4): 398-422.
CALHOUN, C. (ed) (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
CROSSLEY, N. y J. ROBERTS (eds.) (2004). After Habermas. New perspectives on the public sphere. Oxford/ Malden MA: Blackwell/The Sociological Review.
DAVIES, T., y S. PEÑA Gangadharan (eds.) (2009). Online deliberation. Desing, research and practice. (CSLI Lecture 182). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications,
DELLI Carpini, M. X., F. LOMAX Cook y L. R. JACOBS (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 315-344.
GASTIL, j. y P. LEVINE (eds.) (2005). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook (pp. 3-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (John Wiley & Sons). gastil, j. (2008). Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks (CA) / London: Sage Publications. (Véase su complemento: www.ideliberate.org)
GOODNIGHT, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18: 214-227.
GOODNIGHT, G. T. y D. B. Hingstman (1997). Studies in the public sphere. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83: 351-399.
GOODWIN, J. (2005). The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument Informal Logic, 25(2): 151-165.
HABERMAS, J. (1989) [1962, Habilitationsschrift]. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
HABERMAS, J. (1974) [1964]. The public sphere: An encyclopaedia article. New German Critique, 3: 49-55.
HABERMAS, J. (1981, 19874). Teoría de la acción comunicativa. Madrid: Taurus, 2003 (especialmente pp. 46 y ss.).
HABERMAS, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension?. Communication Theory, 16: 411-426.
HITCHCOCK, D., P. McBurney y S. Parsons (2001). “A framework for deliberation dialogues”. En Procds. 4th Biennial Conference OSSA. Windsor (Ontario). Versión digital: www.humanities.mcmaster. ca/~hitchckd.htm
JORBA Galdós, L. (2009), Deliberación y preferencias ciudadanas: un enfoque empírico. Madrid: CIS.
KOCK, C. (2009). The choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation, 23: 61-80.
KOLLER, A. (2010). The public sphere and comparative historical research: An introduction. Social Science History, 34(3): 261-290.
MANSFIELD, J., J. HARTZ-KARP, M. AMENGUAL y J. GASTIL (2006). Norms of deliberation: An inductive study. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2(1): 1-47 (article 7).
MAUDET, N., S. Parsons y I. Rahwan (2007). “Argumentation in Multi-Agent Sistems: context and recent developments”. En N. Maudet, S. Parsons y I. Mahwah (eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agents Systems (pp. 1-16). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
MIN, S.-J., (2007). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 1369-1387.
NANZ, P. y J. Steffek (2004). “Assessing the democratic quality of deliberation in international governance-criteria and research strategies”. European University Institute. Recuperado de: http://cadmus.iue.it
NORMAN, T. J., D. V. Carbogim, E. C. Krabbe y D. N. Walton (2003), “Argument and Multi-Agent Systems”. En C. A. Reed y T. J. Norman (eds.) Argumentation Machines (15-54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
O’KEEFE, D. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association [hoy Argumentation and Advocacy], 13: 121-128.
PELLIZZONI, L. (2001). The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason”. British Journal of Sociology, 52(1): 59-86.
RAWLS, J. (1999). “The idea of public reason revisited”. En Collected Papers (pp. 573-615) (ed. de S. Freeman), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SCHNEIDERHAN, E. y S. KHAN(2008). Reasons and inclusion: The foundations of deliberation. Sociological Theory, 26(1): 1-24.
STEENBERGEN, M. R., A. BÄCHTINGER, M. SPORNDLI y J. STEINER(2003), Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1: 21-48.
STEFFENSMEIER, T. (2008). Argument quality in public deliberations – Report. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45(1): 1-17.
SUNSTEIN, C. R. (2009), Going to extremes. Oxford/New York: OUP
VEGA Reñón, L. y P. Olmos (2007). “Deliberation: a paradigm in the arena of public argument”. En Procds. Conference of Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (CD-ROM) (OSSA, June 7-9, 2007, Windsor, Ontario), Windsor: Windsor University.
WALTON, D. N. (2004). “Criteria of rationality for evaluating democratic public rhetoric”. En B. Fontana, C.J. Nederman y G. Reimer (eds.), Talking democracy (295-330). University Park PA: Pennsylvania State Press.
WALTON, D. N. (2006). Wow to make and defend a proposal in deliberation dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14: 117-239.
WENZEL, J. W. (1980). “Perspectives on argument”. En J. Rhodes y S. E. Newell (eds.) Dimensions of Argument. Procds. Summer Conference on Argumentation (112-133). Anandale(VA): Speech Communication Association.
WENZEL, J. W. (1990). “Three perspectives on argument”. En R. Trapp y K. Schuetz (eds.) Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (9-26). Prospect Heights (IL): Waveland Press.
WIKLUND, H. (2005, diciembre). In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: a Habermasian reviews of environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(4): 281-192.
Once the text is accepted for publication in Quadripartita Ratio, the authors must sign two legal documents: the License of Use and the Declaration of Authorship.
With the License of Use, the authors agree to the publication and diffusion of their work (integration in databases, diffusion in our social media, possible reeditions, etc.). However, it authorizes the download, reproduction and distribution of all published content, as long as the content is not modified and the source is indicated (name of the journal, volume, number, pages and electronic address of the document).
With the Declaration of Authorship, the authors manifest that the work is theirs, original and unpublished.
