What Hamblin’s Formal Dialectic Tells About the Medieval Logical Disputation


A. M. Pavlova


In this paper we reconstruct a famous Severin Boethius’s reasoning according to the idea of the medieval obligationes disputation mainly focusing on the formalizations proposed by Ch. Hamblin. We use two different formalizations of the disputation: first with the help of Ch. Hamblin’s approach specially designed to formalize such logical debates; second, on the basis of his formal dialectics. The two formalizations are used to analyze the logical properties of the rules of the medieval logical disputation and that of their formal dialectic’s counterparts. Our aim is to to show that Hamblin’s formal dialectic is a communicative protocol for rational agents whose structural rules may differ, thus, varying its normative character. By means of comparing Hamblin’s reconstructions with the one proposed by C. Dutilh-Novaes we are able to justify the following conclusions: (1) the formalization suggested by Hamblin fails to reconstruct the full picture of the disputation because it lacks in some the details of it; (2) Hamblin’s formal dialectic and the medieval logical disputation are based on different logical theories; (3) medieval logical disputation, represented by the formalization of C. Dutilh-Novaes, and the two ones of Hamblin encode different types of cognitive agents. DOI: 10.21146/2074-1472-2017-23-1-151-176






van Benthem, J. “Logical Construction Games”, in: Acta Philosophica Fennica 78, Truth and Games, essays in honour of Gabriel Sandu, ed. by T. Aho and A-V Pietarinen, 2006, pp. 123–138.
Boethius, A. M. S. De Hebdomadibus [http://logicmuseum.com/authors/boethius/dehebdomadibus.htm, accessed on 26.03.2017].
Brown, M.A. “The role of the Tractatus de Obligationibus in medieval logic”, Franciscan Studies, 1966, Vol. 26, pp. 26–35.
Burley, W. “Obligations”, in: N. Kretzmann and E. Stump (eds.), Logic and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 369–412.
Dragalina-Chernaya, E. G. “Granitsy logiki: Ontologicheskii povorot”[The Bounds of Logic: Ontological Turn], Filosofiya nauki [Philosophy of Science], 2009, No. 14, pp. 87–99. (In Russian)
Dutilh Novaes, C. “Medieval Obligationes as Logical Games of Consistency Maintenance”, Synthese, 2005, Vol. 145(3), pp. 371–395.
Dutilh Novaes, C. “Roger Swyneshed’s obligationes: A logical game of inference recognition?”, Synthese, 2006, Vol. 151, pp. 125–53.
Dutilh-Novaes, C. Formalizing medieval logical theories : suppositio, consequentiae and obligationes. Dordrecht, Springer, 2007. 316 pp.
Hamblin, Ch. Fallacies. London, 1970. 336 pp.
Hintikka,J. and Sandu, G. “What is Logic?”, in: D. Jacquette (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Logic, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. 13–40.
Lagerlund, H., Olsson, E. “Disputation and Change of Belief – Burley’s Theory of Obligationes as a Theory of Belief Revision”, in: Yrjonsuuri, 2001, pp. 35–62.
Lisanyuk, E. N. “Polemika i srednevekovyi logicheskii ‘disput”’ [Polemics and Medieval Logical “Disputation”], in: Kul’tura polemiki i argumentatsii ot pozdnei antichnosti do Novogo Vremeni [Culture of Polemics and Argumentation from the Late Antiquity to Modern Times], ed. by Yu. I. Ivanova. Moscow: NRU HSE, 2012, pp. 128–156. (In Russian)
Lisanyuk, E. N. “Ritorika i formal’naya dialektika”, [Rhetoric and Formal Dialectic], RATsIO.ru, 2010, No. 3, pp. 26–42. (In Russian)
Lisanyuk, E. N. “Srednevekovyi disput”, [Medieval Dispute], Logikofilosofskie shtudii [Logical and Philosophical Studies], 2006, Vyp. 4, pp. 212–228. (In Russian)
Lisanyuk, E. N., Pavlova, A. M. “Logicheskie aspekty mnogoobraziya agentov”, [Logical Aspects of the Diversity of Agents in Practical Reasoning], Izvetiya ural’skogo universiteta. Seriya 3. Obshchestvennye nauki [IZVESTIA Ural Federal University Journal. Series 3. Social and Political Sciences], 2016, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 45–60. (In Russian)
Liu, F. “Diversity of agents and their Interaction”, Journal of Logic, Language and information, Springer Netherlands, 2009, Vol. 18, issue 1, pp. 23-53.
Lorenzen, P., Lorenz, K. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt, 1978. 238 pp.
Rahman, Sh. “Remarks on Dialogical Meaning: A Case Study”, proceedings of Proofs and Dialogues, 2011, [http://ls.informatik.unituebingen.de/prodi/slides/Rahman.pdf, accessed on 26.03.2017].
Rahman, Sh., Ruckert, H. “Preface”, Synthese, 2001, No. 127, pp. 1–6.
Reed, Ch., Walton, D. “Argumentation Schemes in Dialogue”, in: H.V. Hansen, et. al. (eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM, Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2007, pp. 1–11.
Read, St. “Obligations, Sophisms and Insolubles”, Working paper WP6/2013/01 / St. Read, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow: Publ. House of the Higher School of Economics, 2013. 32 pp.
Spade, P.V. “Three theories of obligationes: Burley, Kilvington and Swyneshed on counterfactual reasoning”, History and Philosophy of Logic, Vol. 3, 1982, pp. 1–32.
Uckelman, S. L. “Obligationes as Formal Dialogue Systems”, in: Proceedings of the fifth starting AI researchers’ symposium. Amsterdam, 2011, pp. 341–353.
Uckelman, S. L., Johnston, Sp. “A Simple Semantics for Aristotelian Apodeictic Syllogistics”, Advances in Modal Logic, 2010, Vol. 8, pp. 454–469.
Weingartner, P. Basic Questions on Truth, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. 230 pp.
Wells, S., Reed, Ch. “Formal Dialectic Specification”, in: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems First International Workshop, 2004, pp. 31–43.
Yrjonsuuri, M. “The role of casus in some fourteenth-century treatises on sophismata and obligations”, in: K. Jacobi, ed., Argumentations theorie. Brill, Leiden, 1993, pp. 301–21.
Yrjonsuuri, M. “Obligationes: 14th Century Logic of Disputational Duties”, in: Acta Philosophica Fennica 55, Societas Philosophica Fennica. Helsinki, 1994. 182 pp.
Yrjonsuuri, M. “Obligations as Thought Experiments”, in: I. Angelelli, M. Cerezo (eds.) Studies on the History of Logic, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996, pp. 79–96.
Yrjonsuuri, M. (ed.) Medieval Formal Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001. 242 pp.