Studia humana (SH) is a multi-disciplinary peer reviewed journal publishing valuable
contributions on any aspect of human sciences such as...
read more...
The article in the issue 11:3/4:
The date of the publication:
2023-01-17
The number of pages:
72
The issue:
11:3/4
Commentaries:
0
The Authors
Sofia Almpani, Elena Lisanyuk, Andrew Schumann, Antonis Kakas, Dimitra Serakioti, Petros Stefaneas, Vladimir A. Stepanov, Panayiotis V. Frangos, Marcin Trepczyński, Ted Peters, Konrad Szocik, Vojko Strahovnik,
Dr. Hab., Professor, St Petersburg State University (SpSU) Russia, Department of Logic, and a professor of National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia. Elena Lisanyuk was born in Vilnius (Lithuania), obtained her PhD in St Petersburg in 1997 with a dissertation on medieval logic and her Doctorate in 2016 in Moscow with a dissertation on logic of argumentation. Key research areas are logic of argumentation and logic of norms; areas of expertise include also history of logic, logical pragmatic and legal philosophy.
e-mail: e.lisanuk@spbu.ru
ARTICLE:
Determining Argumentative Dispute Resolution Reveals Deep Disagreement Over Harassment Issue (A Case-Study of a Discussion in the Russian Parliament)
autor: Elena Lisanyuk,
In 2018, three journalists accused one of the Members of the Russian Parliament of harassment at workplace. Many influential persons of the Russian elite engaged themselves in the public discussion of the conflict. We studied that high-profiled discussion using a hybrid method merging human- and logic-oriented approaches in argumentation studies. The method develops ideas of the new dialectics, the argumentation logic and the logical-cognitive approach to argumentation, on which is based the algorithm for determining of dispute resolution by aggregating formal and informal tools of analysis. We have reconstructed the discussion as two disputes about questions A and B. A: Did the MP violate the code of conduct by making statements or actions against the journalists? B: Are actions like the behavior of the MP harassment? The opinions of the discussion participants were grouped into the four points of view: A1 – the MP did not violate the code of conduct, A2 – the MP violated the code of conduct, B3 – the actions are not harassment, B4 – the actions are harassment. We mapped arguments in support or against each of them using OVA software, evaluated the arguments with the help of the critical questions, a tool proposed in the new dialectics, and determined the ultimate A + B resolution by applying of the algorithm that combines elements of gradual and labelling semantics from the argumentation logic and the classification of disputes from the dialectical approaches. The resolution was a subset of four arguments that ensured the victory of A1+B4. However, the substantial incompatibility of those arguments highlighted a deep disagreement, an unresolvable difference of opinion, between the parties about the permissibility of courtship. The deep disagreement, a bonus result yielded by the application of the hybrid method, excluded the interpretation of the determined resolution as convincing for the parties, but pointed out a way to smooth the difference of opinions by elaborating of legal, social and moral aspects of the problem of harassment at workplace.
