Abstract
Abstract Stone-walling dialogues are exercises in structured non-cooperation. It is true that dialogue partici-pants need to cooperate with one another and in ways sucient to make possible the very dialoguethey are now having. Beyond that there is room for non-cooperation on a scale that gives greato ence to what we call the Goody Two-Shoes Model of argument. In this paper, we argue that non-cooperation dialogues have perfectly legitimate objectives and that in relation to those objectivesthey need not be considered at all subpar to conversations that brim with sunny amity.Two categories of stone-walling non-cooperation dialogues are here examined. They are calledMindClosed and NoEngage. They are exempli ed by the following cases:1. Hostile Police Interrogation2. Judicial Cross-Examination3. Department Store Complaints Management4. Lakatosian Science5. G¨odel’s First Incompleteness Proof. Keywords : dialogues, non-cooperation, stone-walling, threats, MindClosed, NoEngage, BlindDenial,interrogation, cross-examination, complaints, negative heuristic, relevance, evasion, incompletenessproof.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
