Search results

NUMEROUS AUTHORS HAVE ATTESTED TO THE INCOMPLETENESS OF MOST POLICY ARGUMENTS. UNTIL NOW, HOWEVER, THE MACHINERY HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE FOR DEALING WITH COMPLEX AND OPENENDED POLICY ARGUMENTS. THIS PAPER SYNTHESIZES AND EXTENDS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LOGIC OF ARGUMENTATION AND SYMBOLIC LOGIC TO CREATE A METHODOLOGY FOR TREATING COMPLEX ARGUMENTS.

Two primary attributes of knowledge producing activities are identified: tightness of control and richness of reality. These attributes are taken generally to be in opposition to one another at the same level of knowledge. Hence, ultimately researchers must make a trade-off between them. The more of one or both of these attributes a knowledge-producing activity yields, however, the more knowledge a project generates. This leads to the concept of iso-episteme curves—curves of equal units of knowledge that reflect the trade-offs made between reality and control. The results of any experiment can be plotted on an iso-episteme curve and then used to address issues such as improving research methodologies, setting publication policies, and increasing knowledge by means of programs of research.

1 Dialectic as Organization: A Dialectal Approach to Strategic Planning -- 2 Dialectic As Information Theory: A Communication Model of Dialectical Inquiring Systems -- 3 Dialectic As Environment: A Brunswik Lens Model of Dialectical Inquiring Systems -- 4 Dialectic As Experiment -- 5 Dialectic As Process: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving -- 6 Dialectic As Argument: On the Structure of Dialectical Reasoning in the Social and Policy Sciences -- 7 Dialectic As Peer Review: The Case of The United States of America National Science Foundation -- 8 Dialectic as Normative Structure: Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists -- 9 Dialectic As A General Method of Social Science: Varieties of Social Science Experience.

ABSTRACTExpert systems offer promise for decision‐making support in stressful circumstances such as those that occur when law enforcement officials respond to hostage‐taking incidents. These are life‐or‐death situations in which the costs of decision error are enormous.This paper reports on an expert system being developed and tested to aid police decision makers in hostage‐taking incidents. Knowledge is represented by rules embedded in an incident‐based decision‐tree network. Four different decision makers who have similar but distinct information needs are supported and their efforts are coordinated by the system, which must function in real time as the crisis unfolds. Clear, concise, highly focused dialogue is required at the user interface since frequently only seconds are available in which to make a decision and implement it.

ABSTRACTNumerous authors have attested to the incompleteness of most policy arguments. Until now, however, the machinery has not been available for dealing with complex and open‐ended policy arguments. This paper synthesizes and extends recent developments in the logic of argumentation and symbolic logic to create a methodology for treating complex arguments.