I was searching for reference to include in another post on AI, when I ran into this PDF 477904308.pdf (core.ac.uk) "Value-based Argumentation" Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon, While few would be interested in the guts of the paper, the introduction has several observations that are very relevant to those interested in apologetics:
[quote]The inspiration for value-based argumentation originally came from the New Rhetoric of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca [1969]. The key insight of the New Rhetoric was that the acceptability of an argument depended not only on the argument itself, or on available counterarguments, but on the audience to which it was addressed. For an argument to be accepted, its audience has to accept it. In subsequent work on this topic Perelman says: [quote]If men [sic] oppose each other concerning a decision to be taken, it is not because they commit some error of logic or calculation. They discuss apropos the applicable rule, the ends to be considered, the meaning to be given to values, the interpretation and characterisation of facts. [Perelman, 1980], p150.
[quote]The future is, however, a different matter. There are many possible futures, and we can, through our actions, play a part in determining which will come to pass. In practical reasoning, reasoning about what we should do, we attempt to fit the world to our desires, so that our actions will bring out the future that we prefer. But here different values, interests, aspirations and even tastes, may be a legitimate source of rational disagreement. Some may find it strange if someone prefers vanilla ice cream to chocolate, but it is not irrational. Of course, these aspirations can affect deeper matters: in politics a desire for tax rises may exhibit a preference for equality over economic growth. Such a preference is not a matter of rationality, but of the values that one wishes to be expressed in a society. Thus in practical reasoning, rational disagreement is to be expected [Bench Capon, 2002c].
Read the PDF for the full story.
