Titlebook: Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs; Gregor Betz Book 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Argumentation

Concrete

虛構的東西

箴言

geometrician

Diverticulitis

信條

cataract

Introduction to Part Iild on each other and follow a consistent line of reasoning. Based on this general orientation, we pinpoint, in Sect.3.2, the different pieces of evidence which back the main results concerning consensus-conduciveness (cf. Sect.1.4) and which are spread all over Part I. Hence, Sect.3.2 shall serve a

Paradox

The Consensual Dynamics of Simple Random Debatesuments are constructed randomly, and proponents adopt the coherent position which is closest to their previous one. These simulations will serve to scrutinize a simple hypothesis, which says that the overall consensus reached in a debate at some step . depends on two factors: (1) the initial agreeme

畫布

The Consensual Dynamics of Random Debates with Explicit Background Knowledgeents are introduced randomly and as long as there are no commonly agreed upon background beliefs. In the following, we take background knowledge into account by explicitly fixing the truth values assigned to some of the sentences, and investigate whether this fosters the rapprochement of proponent p

重力