Is critical argumentation an effective way to overcome disagreement? And
does the exchange of arguments bring opponents in a controversy closer
to the truth? This study provides a new perspective on these pivotal
questions. By means of multi-agent simulations, it investigates the
truth and consensus-conduciveness of controversial debates. The book
brings together research in formal epistemology and argumentation
theory. Aside from its consequences for discursive practice, the work
may have important implications for philosophy of science and the way we
construe scientific rationality as well.