Switch to: References

Citations of:

Argumentation Schemes

Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press (2008)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. How Can Modifications of Meaning Influence Argumentation? The Concept and Typology of Semantic Arguments.Jakub Pruś - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (3):483-508.
    The aim of this article is to show how modifications of meaning can influence argumentation. I present the basic concept of so-called ‘semantic argumentation,’ its definition, and its different variants. I analyse the various kinds of argument in which meanings of terms are modified in support of a persuasive goal. The analysis of different semantic arguments reveals certain structures and patterns that are needed to construct a typology of such arguments. I thus outline a basic concept of argumentation based on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Designing Critical Questions for Argumentation Schemes.Michael D. Baumtrog - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (4):629-643.
    This paper offers insights into the nature and design of critical questions as they are found in argumentation schemes. In the first part of the paper, I address some general concerns regarding their purpose and formulation. These include a discussion of their evaluative function, their relationship with the patterns of reasoning they accompany, as well as the differing formulations of critical questions currently on offer. I argue that the purpose of critical questions for humans ought to be to provide the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Associating Ethos with Objects: Reasoning from Character of Public Figures to Actions in the World.Katarzyna Budzynska, Marcin Koszowy & Martín Pereira-Fariña - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (4):519-549.
    Ethotic arguments, such as arguments from expert opinion and ad hominem arguments, play an important role in communication practice. In this paper, we argue that there is another type of reasoning from ethos, in which people argue about actions in the world. These subspecies of ethotic arguments are very common in public debates: societies are involved in heated disputes about what should be done with monuments of historical figures such as Stalin or Colston: Should we demolish the building they funded? (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Argument of Mathematics. [REVIEW]David Hitchcock - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):245-258.
    Post-war argumentation theorists have tended to regard argumentation as one thing and mathematical proof as another. Perelman (1958, 1969), for example, defined the word ‘argumentation’ stipulatively as a contrast term to ‘demonstration’: whereas mathematical reasoning as theorized by modern formal logic, he writes, is a matter of deducing theorems from axioms in accordance with stipulated rules of transformation, argumentation aims at gaining the adherence of minds (Perelman 1969, pp. 1–2). Toulmin (1958) contrasted his “jurisprudential model” of argument, according to which (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An Argumentative Approach to “Framing”. Framing, Deliberation and Action in an Environmental Conflict.Isabela Fairclough & Irina Diana Madroane - 2020 - Co-herencia 17 (32):119-158.
    This article proposes a new theorization of the concept of framing or framework, in which the argumentation plays a fundamental role. When we talk about making decisions, framing a matter involves offering the audience a prominent and therefore possibly paramount premise in a deliberative process that allows to substantiate as much of the decision as the action. The analysis focuses on the case of The Public Policy Controversy, which, over the years, became a socio-environmental movement and which, in September 2013, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-Disciplinary Guide.Marcello Guarini, Amy Butchart, Paul Simard Smith & Andrei Moldovan - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (2):84-197.
    Work on analogy has been done from a number of disciplinary perspectives throughout the history of Western thought. This work is a multidisciplinary guide to theorizing about analogy. It contains 1,406 references, primarily to journal articles and monographs, and primarily to English language material. classical through to contemporary sources are included. The work is classified into eight different sections (with a number of subsections). A brief introduction to each section is provided. Keywords and key expressions of importance to research on (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (1):322-350.
    To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What's in a Good Argument About Evaluative Claims? Argumentation in Accountability Practices.Mohammed Dima - unknown
    What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature. The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments.H. M. Wagemans Jean - unknown
    The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On Arguments From Ignorance.Martin David Hinton - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (2):184-212.
    The purpose of this paper is twofold: to give a good account of the argument from ignorance, with a presumptive argumentation scheme, and to raise issues on the work of Walton, the nature of abduction and the concept of epistemic closure. First, I offer a brief disambiguation of how the terms 'argument from ignorance' and 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' are used. Second, I show how attempts to embellish this form of reasoning by Douglas Walton and A.J. Kreider have been unnecessary and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (3):309-332.
    The classification of a state of affairs under a legal category can be considered as a kind of con- densed decision that can be made explicit, analyzed, and assessed us- ing argumentation schemes. In this paper, the controversial conflict of opinions concerning the nature of “marriage” in Obergefell v. Hodges is analyzed pointing out the dialecti- cal strategies used for addressing the interpretive doubts. The dispute about the same-sex couples’ right to marry hides a much deeper disa- greement not only (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Epistemology, Pedagogy, Assessment and Learning Analytics.Simon Knight, Simon Buckingham Shum & Karen Littleton - 2013 - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge.
    There is a well-established literature examining the relationships between epistemology (the nature of knowledge), pedagogy (the nature of learning and teaching), and assessment. Learning Analytics (LA) is a new assessment technology and should engage with this literature since it has implications for when and why different LA tools might be deployed. This paper discusses these issues, relating them to an example construct, epistemic beliefs – beliefs about the nature of knowledge – for which analytics grounded in pragmatic, sociocultural theory might (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Probabilistic Analysis of Argument Cogency.David Godden & Frank Zenker - 2018 - Synthese 195 (4):1715-1740.
    This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Assessing Relevance.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Lingua 210:42-64.
    This paper advances an approach to relevance grounded on patterns of material inference called argumentation schemes, which can account for the reconstruction and the evaluation of relevance relations. In order to account for relevance in different types of dialogical contexts, pursuing also non-cognitive goals, and measuring the scalar strength of relevance, communicative acts are conceived as dialogue moves, whose coherence with the previous ones or the context is represented as the conclusion of steps of material inferences. Such inferences are described (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Causal Argument.Ulrike Hahn, Frank Zenker & Roland Bluhm - 2017 - In Michael R. Waldmann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 475-494.
    In this chapter, we outline the range of argument forms involving causation that can be found in everyday discourse. We also survey empirical work concerned with the generation and evaluation of such arguments. This survey makes clear that there is presently no unified body of research concerned with causal argument. We highlight the benefits of a unified treatment both for those interested in causal cognition and those interested in argumentation, and identify the key challenges that must be met for a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • How Can Metaphors Communicate Arguments?Fabrizio Macagno - 2020 - Intercultural Pragmatics 3 (17):335-363.
    Metaphors are considered as instruments crucial for persuasion. However, while their emotive, communicative and persuasive effects are the focus of different studies and discussions, the core of their persuasive function, namely their argumentative dimension, is almost neglected. This paper addresses the problem of explaining how metaphors can communicate arguments, and how it is possible to reconstruct and justify them. To this purpose, a distinction is drawn between the arguments that are communicated metaphorically and reconstructed “top down,” namely based on relevance (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Narration as Argument.Paula Olmos (ed.) - 2017 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    In this paper I explore the possibilities of acknowledging the argumentative character of narration. Two basic models will be revised: 1) primary narratives, regarding issues and facts under discussion, which may work as implicit arguments about the coincidence between discourse and reality via their own internal plausibility and 2) secondary narratives, imaginatively inserted in discourse, and serving as evidence for diverse lines of analogical or exemplary argumentation.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Argumentation Schemes and Communities of Argumentational Practice.Andrew Aberdein - 2009 - In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. OSSA.
    Is it possible to distinguish communities of arguers by tracking the argumentation schemes they employ? There are many ways of relating schemes to communities, but not all are productive. Attention must be paid not only to the admissibility of schemes within a community of argumentational practice, but also to their comparative frequency. Two examples are discussed: informal mathematics, a convenient source of well-documented argumentational practice, and anthropological evidence of nonstandard reasoning.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Implicatures and Hierarchies of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (University of Windsor, ON 18-21 May 2011). OSSA. pp. 1-17.
    Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Fallacies in the Historiography of Generative Linguistics.András Kertész - 2019 - Foundations of Science 24 (4):775-801.
    The paper relates two different fields of research: the historiography of generative linguistics and argumentation theory, a central topic of which is the investigation of fallacies. Relating the two fields is a challenge: Since fallacies seem to be at the heart of the historiography of generative linguistics, any thorough evaluation of its present state of the art also involves accounting for fallacies. The paper applies Kertész and Rákosi’s p-model of plausible argumentation to a case study on heated discussions in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Circularity in Ethotic Structures.Katarzyna Budzynska - 2013 - Synthese 190 (15):3185-3207.
    The aim of this paper is to provide a model that allows the representation and analysis of circularity in ethotic structures, i.e. in communication structures related to the speaker’s character and in particular, his credibility. The paper studies three types of cycles: in self-referential sentences, embedded testimony and ethotic begging the question. It is shown that standard models allow the reconstruction of the circularities only if those circular utterances are interpreted as ethotic arguments. Their alternative, assertive interpretation requires enriching the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases.Henry Prakken - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (1):27-49.
    In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education.Aikaterini Konstantinidou & Fabrizio Macagno - 2013 - Science & Education 22 (5):1069-1087.
    The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The Elusive Notion of “Argument Quality”.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):213-240.
    We all seem to have a sense of what good and bad arguments are, and there is a long history—focusing on fallacies—of trying to provide objective standards that would allow a clear separation of good and bad arguments. This contribution discusses the limits of attempts to determine the quality of arguments. It begins with defining bad arguments as those that deviate from an established standard of good arguments. Since there are different conceptualizations of “argument”—as controversy, as debate, and as justification—and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Arguments From Authority and Expert Opinion in Computational Argumentation Systems.Douglas Walton & Marcin Koszowy - 2017 - AI and Society 32 (4):483-496.
    In this paper we show that an essential aspect of solving the problem of uncritical acceptance of expert opinions that is at the root of the ad verecundiam fallacy is the need to disentangle argument from expert opinion from another kind of appeal to authority. Formal and computational argumentation systems enable us to analyze the fault in which an error has occurred by virtue of a failure to meet one or more of the requirements of the argumentation scheme from argument (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • HYPO's Legacy: Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (2):205-250.
    This paper is an introduction to a virtual special issue of AI and Law exploring the legacy of the influential HYPO system of Rissland and Ashley. The papers included are: Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining, BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval, Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue Game, A note on dimensions and factors, An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application, Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes, A factor-based definition (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Argument Web: An Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation.Mark Snaith, Alison Pease, John Lawrence, Barbara Konat, Mathilde Janier, Rory Duthie, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):137-160.
    The Argument Web is maturing as both a platform built upon a synthesis of many contemporary theories of argumentation in philosophy and also as an ecosystem in which various applications and application components are contributed by different research groups around the world. It already hosts the largest publicly accessible corpora of argumentation and has the largest number of interoperable and cross compatible tools for the analysis, navigation and evaluation of arguments across a broad range of domains, languages and activity types. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?Peter Jan Schellens, Ester Šorm, Rian Timmers & Hans Hoeken - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):681-703.
    Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions.Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):591-613.
    In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise “the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today”. I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The “presumption of veracity” is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):469-484.
    Although in some contexts the notions of an ordinary argument’s presumption, assumption, and presupposition appear to merge into the one concept of an implicit premise, there are important differences between these three notions. It is argued that assumption and presupposition, but not presumption, are basic logical notions. A presupposition of an argument is best understood as pertaining to a propositional element (a premise or the conclusion) e of the argument, such that the presupposition is a necessary condition for the truth (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans.Douglas Walton - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6):1507-1528.
    This article applies tools from argumentation theory to slippery slope arguments used in current ethical debates on genetic engineering. Among the tools used are argumentation schemes, value-based argumentation, critical questions, and burden of proof. It is argued that so-called drivers such as social acceptance and rapid technological development are also important factors that need to be taken into account alongside the argumentation scheme. It is shown that the slippery slope argument is basically a reasonable form of argument, but is often (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):221-243.
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Stimulating Reflection and Self-Correcting Reasoning Through Argument Mapping: Three Approaches.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2018 - Topoi 37 (1):185-199.
    A large body of research in cognitive science differentiates human reasoning into two types: fast, intuitive, and emotional “System 1” thinking, and slower, more reflective “System 2” reasoning. According to this research, human reasoning is by default fast and intuitive, but that means that it is prone to error and biases that cloud our judgments and decision making. To improve the quality of reasoning, critical thinking education should develop strategies to slow it down and to become more reflective. The goal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory.Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):283-300.
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Computational Dialectic and Rhetorical Invention.Douglas Walton - 2011 - AI and Society 26 (1):2011.
    This paper has three dimensions, historical, theoretical and social. The historical dimension is to show how the Ciceronian system of dialectical argumentation served as a precursor to computational models of argumentation schemes such as Araucaria and Carneades. The theoretical dimension is to show concretely how these argumentation schemes reveal the interdependency of rhetoric and logic, and so the interdependency of the normative with the empirical. It does this by identifying points of disagreement in a dialectical format through using argumentation schemes (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Changing Philosophy Through Technology: Complexity and Computer-Supported Collaborative Argument Mapping.Michael H. G. Hoffmann - 2015 - Philosophy and Technology 28 (2):167-188.
    Technology is not only an object of philosophical reflection but also something that can change this reflection. This paper discusses the potential of computer-supported argument visualization tools for coping with the complexity of philosophical arguments. I will show, in particular, how the interactive and web-based argument mapping software “AGORA-net” can change the practice of philosophical reflection, communication, and collaboration. AGORA-net allows the graphical representation of complex argumentations in logical form and the synchronous and asynchronous collaboration on those “argument maps” on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Baseballs and Arguments From Fairness.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):423-449.
    This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme for argument from fairness is shown to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Dialogues in Argumentation.Von Burg Ron - 2016 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This volume focuses on dialogue and argumentation in contexts which are marked by truculence and discord. The contributors include well known argumentation scholars who discuss the issues this raises from the point of view of a variety of disciplines and points of view. The authors seek to address theoretically challenging issues in a way that is relevant to both the theory and the practice of argument. The collection brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
    This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Epistemology, Assessment, Pedagogy: Where Learning Meets Analytics in the Middle Space.Simon Knight, Simon Buckingham Shum & Karen Littleton - forthcoming - Journal of Learning Analytics.
    Learning Analytics is an emerging research field and design discipline which occupies the ‘middle space’ between the learning sciences/educational research, and the use of computational techniques to capture and analyse data (Suthers and Verbert, 2013). We propose that the literature examining the triadic relationships between epistemology (the nature of knowledge), pedagogy (the nature of learning and teaching) and assessment provide critical considerations for bounding this middle space. We provide examples to illustrate the ways in which the understandings of particular analytics (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Annotating Argument Schemes.Jacky Visser, John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Jean Wagemans & Douglas Walton - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (1):101-139.
    Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitatively provide such insight are few and far between. This is all the more true for argument scheme corpora, which tend (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks.Norman Fenton, Martin Neil & David A. Lagnado - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (1):61-102.
    A Bayesian network (BN) is a graphical model of uncertainty that is especially well suited to legal arguments. It enables us to visualize and model dependencies between different hypotheses and pieces of evidence and to calculate the revised probability beliefs about all uncertain factors when any piece of new evidence is presented. Although BNs have been widely discussed and recently used in the context of legal arguments, there is no systematic, repeatable method for modeling legal arguments as BNs. Hence, where (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • Argument Schemes for Reasoning About Trust.Simon Parsons, Katie Atkinson, Zimi Li, Peter McBurney, Elizabeth Sklar, Munindar Singh, Karen Haigh, Karl Levitt & Jeff Rowe - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):160-190.
    Trust is a natural mechanism by which an autonomous party, an agent, can deal with the inherent uncertainty regarding the behaviours of other parties and the uncertainty in the information it shares with those parties. Trust is thus crucial in any decentralised system. This paper builds on recent efforts to use argumentation to reason about trust. Specifically, a set of schemes is provided, and abstract patterns of reasoning that apply in multiple situations geared towards trust. Schemes are described in which (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Semantic Clause Types and Modality as Features for Argument Analysis1.Maria Becker, Alexis Palmer & Anette Frank - 2017 - Argument and Computation 8 (2):95-112.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):276-310.
    This paper applies dialectical argumentation structures to the problem of analyzing the ad baculum fallacy. It is shown how it is necessary in order to evaluate a suspected instance of the this fallacy to proceed through three levels of analysis: an inferential level, represented by an argument diagram, a speech act level, where conditions for specific types of speech acts are defined and applied, and a dialectical level where the first two levels are linked together and fitted into formal dialogue (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Basic Slippery Slope Argument.Douglas Walton - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (3):273-311.
    Although studies have yielded a detailed taxonomy of types of slippery slope arguments, they have failed to identify a basic argumentation scheme that applies to all. Therefore, there is no way of telling whether a given argument is a slippery slope argument or not. This paper solves the problem by providing a basic argumentation scheme. The scheme is shown to fit a clear and easily comprehensible example of a slippery slope argument that strongly appears to be reasonable, something that has (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Argument Form "Appeal to Galileo": A Critical Appreciation of Doury’s Account.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (3):221-272.
    Following a linguistic-descriptivist approach, Marianne Doury has studied debates about “parasciences”, discovering that “parascientists” frequently argue by “appeal to Galileo” ; opponents object by criticizing the analogy, charging fallacy, and appealing to counter-examples. I argue that Galilean appeals are much more widely used, by creationists, global-warming skeptics, advocates of “settled science”, great scientists, and great philosophers. Moreover, several subtypes should be distinguished; critiques questioning the analogy are proper; fallacy charges are problematic; and appeals to counter-examples are really indirect critiques of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Deliberative Democracy and Complex Diversity. From Discourse Ethics to the Theory of Argumentation.Imaz Alias Oier - 2017 - Dissertation, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark