Qué debería saber de lógica un (buen) ciudadano

Luis Vega Reñón

doi:10.32870/qr.v1i1.59

Luis Vega Reñón UNED

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32870/qr.v1i1.59

Palabras clave: teoría de la argumentación, deliberación, discurso público, lógica civil.

Resumen

Recepción: 15 de octubre de 2015 Aceptación: 5 de enero de 2016 En la consideración de esta delicada cuestión, voy a empezar proponiendo una respuesta genérica: un ciudadano cabal debería estar familiarizado con la teoría de la argumentación; para luego dar, en definitiva, una respuesta más específica: un buen ciudadano debería tener cierto dominio de la teoría y la práctica de la deliberación pública como paradigma, de la que llamo “lógica civil”.

Citas

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.