Principles of New Science
Edda WeigandLanguage and Dialogue
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
The current state of the art in Dialogue Analysis represents a multitude of diverse models of dialogue, communication, pragmatics, discourse, interaction, organization, and management, which claim to be science or philosophy. Can we indeed expose science and philosophy to arbitrary decisions on issues and methodology? As soon as our object becomes ‘dialogue in the stream of life’, science faces the issue of complexity. The challenge is to develop a new type of science which is capable of grasping the complex whole and deriving the components from it. New Science as science of complexity also demonstrates how science and philosophy can be united by description and explanation in science and evaluation and recommendation in philosophy.
Related papers
PHILOSOPHY OF DIALOGUE: A HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMATIC INTRODUCTION
Dvorkin I. Philosophy of Dialogue: a historical and systematic introduction. // Judaica Petropolitana. № 13. (2020), pp. 6-24.
The question about the philosophy of dialogue can be answered in three complementary senses: historical, systematic, and applied. The philosophy of dialogue arose in the 1920s in Germany and Russia. The works of Rosenzweig, Buber, Ebner, Bakhtin should be mentioned as the most important works introducing the philosophy of dialogue as a special line of thought. However, dialogical ideas have been expressed before. We consider the works of Hermann Cohen written in 1902–1918 to be a particularly important source of the philosophy of dialogue. Later, the philosophy of dialogue was significantly developed in the works of E. Levinas in France and V. Bibler in the Soviet Union. This philosophical current was studied and developed by scholars and thinkers in Germany, Israel, USA, Russia and other countries. In a systematic sense, the philosophy of dialogue can be viewed as a kind of “first philosophy” that interprets reality as a dialogue of persons. The philosophy of dialogue deals with first, second and third persons singular, and first person plural and their relationships. Reality is understood as a dynamic process of interpersonal relationships. Speech and language are interpreted not as a way of formulating thoughts, but as a fundamental carrier of interpersonal relations. The philosophy of dialogue is formulated by its creators as a language, speech or grammatical philosophy. Since reality is interpreted in it as an interpersonal process, the philosophy of dialogue ives rise to original understanding of the nature of space, time, causality, biological, mental and social life. The philosophy of dialogue removes the contradiction between the humanities and natural sciences; it also forms new methods of historical research. Considering the interpersonal process fundamental, the philosophy of dialogue becomes an important foundation of edagogy both in theoretical and practical dimensions.
Dialogue and debate in a Post-Normal Practice of Science: A reflexion
Scientific activities are always embedded in the cultural matrix that gives purpose to the enterprise, and so we need to develop a rich and meaningful view of social reality. In doing so we realise that we all live different lives, but each of us can broaden our knowledge of the social world through dialogue with others. If scientific questions, which relate directly to society, were researched in a ‘dialogical’ manner, ways would be sought to understand the concerned individuals, populations or stakeholders. While never rejecting concern for internal coherence and rigour, science can cope better with future uncertainties, and better solve the problems of those peoples that make up society, by extensively utilising social dialogue.
International Association for Dialogue Analysis
Abstract We discuss the representations arrived at when emergent themes were identified during dialogues and identified if and where deviations occurred. The objective was to measure if simple dialogue aimed at internalizing knowledge, based on the interplay of theoretical readings, professional experience and specialized subject matter culture, enhances meaning-making.
Journal of Dialogue Studies Volume 1 Number 1 Paper 3: Studying Dialogue – Some Reflections
In this paper, I would like to share some thoughts provoked by the idea of establishing ‘dialogue studies’ as a distinct academic field, as suggested in the inaugural call for contributions to the new journal. These are not meant to be exhaustive of all the relevant questions that could be considered under this heading. I do not, for example, consider the question of disciplinary contributions or boundaries. My emphasis, rather, is on questions to do with ethos and coherence. In particular, I am interested in exploring the possibility, and the challenges, of cultivating a dialogic approach to the study of dialogue itself. My reflections begin with a look at the tendency, within academia, to privilege debate as a form of communication and the question of whether we might conceive a Journal of Dialogue Studies as a forum for a different kind of exchange. I then reflect on some of the difficulties of studying dialogue itself, particularly where this involves outside observers. The final section raises some issues around ‘studying dialogue’ in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. My overall intention here is to share some current, tentative thoughts in the hope that this contributes to a dialogue on the idea, and perhaps the practice, of ‘dialogue studies’.
Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms?
Discourse & Society, 2003
Downloaded from 1977: 568-9, and passim). Garfinkel treats this difficulty as pointing to a more fundamental one about the very way in which Parsons had formulated the problem of social order. Parsons took this problem over from Hobbes, even while rejecting the Hobbesian solution to it. And implicit in Parsons' approach is the idea that social order is something whose existence (and non-existence) can be scientifically explained. However, in setting out to do this, he conflates two quite different conceptions of order: Hobbes' political sense of order, which refers to the absence, or minimization, of conflict and violence; and the kind of order whose existence is required if scientific understanding is even to be possible. The latter refers to intelligibility or explainability; and, of course, social conflicts are not disorderly in this sense. Although they may involve much uncertainty, their causation, temporal course and consequences can be understood to the same extent and in much the same ways as can social harmony. By contrast, if human social life were disorderly in a fundamental scientific sense, we could have no knowledge or understanding of it. This conflation of two different meanings of 'order' arises because Parsons' conception of social order is a pragmatic or political one, yet also claims to be scientific. In this way, Garfinkel's critique suggests, his project of a scientific sociology is vitiated.
Introduction:: How and why should we study dialogue?
2016
The Dialogue Society is a registered charity, established in London in 1999, with the aim of advancing social cohesion by connecting communities through dialogue. It operates nationwide with regional branches across the UK. Through localised community projects, discussion forums, teaching programmes and capacity building publications it enables people to venture across boundaries of religion, culture and social class. It provides a platform where people can meet to share narratives and perspectives, discover the values they have in common and be at ease with their differences.
Philosophy and the sciences of mind. The importance of the interdisciplinary dialogue for the progress of both theoretical and practical scientific activities
Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro …, 2008
Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches
Public Understanding of Science, 2008
... The application of the-ories from these different fields should lead to effective sciencecommunication towards a broad audience. ... However, to build a well-founded theoretical basis for effective science communication, we need to consider science communication as a whole. ...
Philosophy as Self-Constituting Discourse: The Case of Dialogue
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 2006
Research in the analysis of discourse as such dates from the 1960s. Studying texts is, however, a much earlier practice. At fi rst, the analysts of discourse were mainly concerned with corpuses that had not been studied previously: familiar conversations, mediated discourses, utterances linked to administrative, political, legal institutions, and so forth. They have thus allowed the traditional modes of analyzing philosophical, religious, or literary texts to endure. Still, I fi nd it necessary to use the concepts and methods of discourse analysis with these corpuses as well; this is what I have been trying to do with philosophical dialogue since the 1980s by developing concepts adapted to this type of discourse (Cossutta 1998-2001) and applying them to the works of philosophers, in a methodological context bearing most especially upon the theories of linguistic enunciation (Benveniste 1966; Culioli 1990). In this article, I shall consider the problem set by dialogue in philosophical discourse. Research on conversations is probably the most developed area of study, and I would like to show that the representation of the verbal interactions takes place within a very different framework when it comes to philosophical texts: not only because, like in theater, the texts are produced by an author (and are not real interactions), but also because the "self-constituting" character of philosophy decisively shapes the use of this genre.
Culture, Science and Dialogue
Culture and Dialogue, 2016
How do we understand the sciences and discourses about them? Aspects of philosophical dialogue are highlighted and considered in ways that reveal distinct domains of enquiry relating to culture, science and mathematics. This analysis serves to contextualize the nature and content of the papers selected for the collection.
Related topics
Related papers
Studying Dialogue – Some Reflections
In this paper, I would like to share some thoughts provoked by the idea of establishing 'dialogue studies' as a distinct academic field, as suggested in the inaugural call for contributions to the new journal. These are not meant to be exhaustive of all the relevant questions that could be considered under this heading. I do not, for example, consider the question of disciplinary contributions or boundaries. My emphasis, rather, is on questions to do with ethos and coherence. In particular, I am interested in exploring the possibility, and the challenges, of cultivating a dialogic approach to the study of dialogue itself. My reflections begin with a look at the tendency, within academia, to privilege debate as a form of communication and the question of whether we might conceive a Journal of Dialogue Studies as a forum for a different kind of exchange. I then reflect on some of the difficulties of studying dialogue itself, particularly where this involves outside observers. The final section raises some issues around 'studying dialogue' in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. My overall intention here is to share some current, tentative thoughts in the hope that this contributes to a dialogue on the idea, and perhaps the practice, of 'dialogue studies'.
Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction [Book Review]
Qualitative Research Journal, 2005
Culture, Science and Dialogue: An Introduction
Culture and Dialogue Vol. 4 , no. 1, 2016
issue of Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and
2015
Philosophy and the sciences of mind. The importance of the interdisciplinary dialogue for the progress of both theoretical and practical scientific activities
Journal of Dialogue Studies Volume 1 Number 1 Paper 2: Future Directions and Discipline Formation for ‘Dialogue Studies’: Reflections on Critically Analyzing ‘Dialogue’ in Theory and Practice
In considering the need for a newly formed research area, or emergent discipline, of ‘dialogue studies’ this paper will explore three interrelated themes: the concept of ‘dialogue studies’ and its parameters and framing as an emergent discipline; the potential benefits of such a discipline to practice and policy; and the importance of critically understanding the cultural and epistemological context of ‘dialogue’ and its role in living with not only diversity, but difference. Whilst recognizing that there is a clear practice-driven need for the development of an area of research under the banner of ‘dialogue studies’ and that there are existing bodies of research, which such a field can effectively build on, this paper argues that the development of dialogue studies as a field cannot simply bring together and augment existing discourses, but needs to create new perspectives by adopting a multidisciplinary approach. It is also postulated that there is a need to develop an internal critical discourse within ‘dialogue studies’ which builds reflexivity into future research development and that ultimately any research undertaken in this area has to be both beneficial and supportive of practice, whilst also clearly articulating its successes and failures.
Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction
2005
I would like to thank my commissioning editor at Sage, Michael Carmichael. Throughout the period of writing this book, he has been extremely helpful and supportive; we had numerous meetings at which we discussed the (occasionally slow) progress of the manuscript, and he always exuded a quiet confidence in the project, which invariably fired my enthusiasm. He's an excellent editor, and it has been a pleasure working with him. (He is also largely responsible for this book, probably much more so than most editors, for it was he who adroitly sidestepped my initial proposal to write a book on an entirely different topic, and gently suggested that I might like to consider writing something about the relationship between CA and DA. So it's his fault, really.) There is a community of scholars whose work has had an important influence on my own, and their research figures prominently in the pages which follow; and whose company at various conferences around the world has been great fun. You know who you are. To all of you, for providing such a supportive intellectual and (extended) social environment, I thank you. Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter deserve a special mention. They read an earlier version of the manuscript and made numerous suggestions, all of which have made this a better piece of work. Finally, my debt to Wendy Tunnicliffe is enormous. For too long, I've been a peripheral presence at weekends and in the evenings, and she has put up with that without complaint. The dedication of this book to her in no way settles the debt, but it's a start.
The dialogic ladder: Toward a framework of dialogue
Public Relations Review, 2020
This paper articulates the existence of different forms of 'dialogue', ranging from the conduct of simple two-way communication through more interactive forms culminating in true (or capital D) Dialogue. The importance of, and rationale for, the making of these distinctions is discussed in relation to the theorizing and practice of dialogue in public relations. A framework encompassing variations on the theme of dialogue is proposed in the form of a dialogic ladder that reflects the everyday usage of the term, while also preserving the existence and distinction of the normative form. The clearer and more consistent conceptualization of dialogue resulting from the dialogic ladder will assist in developing teaching curricula and associated materials that enable future researchers and practitioners to distinguish between true Dialogue and other forms. The dialogic ladder contributes to the development of dialogue theory that either expands to include dialogue-in-name-only (Kent & Theunissen, 2016), or narrows its focus to consider only true Dialogue. It will also allow identification of situations in practice where two-way communication falls short of true Dialogue, and stimulate efforts to consider why this shortfall occurs and how it might be addressed-if the conduct of true Dialogue is deemed necessary and possible. Finally, the dialogic ladder provides an alternative perspective on the role of dialogue in the two-way symmetric model of public relations.
Future Directions and Discipline Formation for ‘Dialogue Studies’: Reflections on Critically Analyzing ‘Dialogue’ in Theory and Practice
In considering the need for a newly formed research area, or emergent discipline, of 'dialogue studies' this paper will explore three interrelated themes: the concept of 'dialogue studies' and its parameters and framing as an emergent discipline; the potential benefits of such a discipline to practice and policy; and the importance of critically understanding the cultural and epistemological context of 'dialogue' and its role in living with not only diversity, but difference. Whilst recognizing that there is a clear practice-driven need for the development of an area of research under the banner of 'dialogue studies' and that there are existing bodies of research, which such a field can effectively build on, this paper argues that the development of dialogue studies as a field cannot simply bring together and augment existing discourses, but needs to create new perspectives by adopting a multidisciplinary approach. It is also postulated that there is a need to develop an internal critical discourse within 'dialogue studies' which builds reflexivity into future research development and that ultimately any research undertaken in this area has to be both beneficial and supportive of practice, whilst also clearly articulating its successes and failures.
The Problematologic Analysis of the Philosophical Dialogue: From the Critical Function to the Minimal Epistemology
2013
The starting point of problematology1 as a discipline is the history of philosophy, i.e. the constant dialogue that establishes between the person that asks the question and tradition. This report highlights a key point: the philosophical questions are not new, they are returned to the surface by that one who asks the question. To ask a question and ignore tradition is quite inefficient. There is really no risk of reaching a new, but an existing, ignored result. The multiple responses entering in relation to one and the same question go beyond the way to resolve the question/ problem to the level of the binary logic. What makes problematology and hence its model, to send, or to be based on a fuzzy logic is the concept of possibility. From Meyer's perspective, this concept is not feasible only in terms of problematology. A dependency link is established between possibility and problematology:"...the wish to give the answer sets the possibility as an alternative, as a choice,...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.