DOCSLIB.ORG

299 Abelson, RP, 66 Abductive Argument Argumentation Scheme For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
299 Abelson, RP, 66 Abductive Argument Argumentation Scheme For Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-03930-8 - Methods of Argumentation Douglas Walton Index More information Index Abelson, R.P., 66 Anchored narrative, 137 , 163 Abductive argument Appeal to authority, 216–17 argumentation scheme for, 162 Appeal to expert opinion, 216 , 221 critical questions for, 162 Appeal to the people, see Fallacy of Abductive reasoning, 111 , 160 , 187–88 argument from popular opinion argumentation scheme for, 84 , 206 Araucaria, 15 , 16 , 99 critical questions for, 84 compared, 19–20 modeling with, 160–61 described, 12–13 Abortion case, 143–44 , 148 ArguMed, 16 , 17 Abstract argumentation framework, comparison, 20 35–36 Argument defi ned, 33 attack, 27 , 42 , 53 , 55 , 78 Action-based alternating transition back and forth exchange, 92 system, 156 composition, 46 , 48 , 90 ACTOS example, 1 , 20 defi nition, 48 , 88 , 89 critical questions, 15–16 defeasible, 7 , 30 , 227 , 229 , 246–47 explained, 14 open-ended, 238 Ad hominem argument, 50 , 159 , 234 evaluated, 33 defi ned, 96 identifying, 94–97 requirements of, 97 requirements for identifying, 89–90 types of, 118 Argument diagram, 72 , 255–56 , 259 Ad hominem attack, 235 composition of, 10 Ad verecundiam fallacy, 274 Argument from analogy, 42 , 114 , 139 , Affi davit example, 44–45 143 , 146 Agent argumentation scheme for, 122 , 145 described, 101 core, 126 , 130–31 , 149 desires and beliefs, 5 derived scheme, 130–31 Aiken, S., 281 simplest, 126 , 147–49 , 151–52 Airline fl ight schedule, 244 single respect scheme, 128 , 149–50 Ali, S., 104 version 1 , 141 , 142 , 147 Allen, R.J., 156 , 171 version 2 , 127 , 140 Ambiguity, 64 , 175–76 , 179 , 254 critical questions for, 142 , 147 , 150 Amsterdam School, 113 , 213–14 defeasible, 128 , 140 299 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-03930-8 - Methods of Argumentation Douglas Walton Index More information 300 Index Argument from analogy (cont.) argumentation scheme for, 103 plausibility, 144 Argument from perception, 32 , 44 , 47 stages of, 135 Argument from precedent, 2 , 24 , 67 , Argument from appearance, 44 113–14 , 129 , 134 Argument from bias, 52 , 62 argumentation scheme for, 130 Argument from classifi cation, 133 Argument from position to know, 62 , Argument from commitment, 113 , 223 110–11 , 117 , 121 argumentation scheme for, 221 , 222 argumentation scheme for, 97 , 99 , critical questions for, 22 112 , 116 Argument from correlation to cause, 79 critical questions for, 98 argumentation scheme for, 188 Argument from positive consequences, critical questions for, 79–81 , 189–90 , 255 207 argumentation scheme for, 102 evaluating, 189 Argument from positive value Argument from defi nition to verbal argumentation scheme for, 102 classifi cation, 133 Argument from precedent, 114 argumentation scheme for, 133 argumentation scheme for, 129 , 130 Argument from evidence to a Argument from sample to population, 79 hypothesis, 111 Argument from sign, 70 Argument from expert opinion, 43 , 76 , Argument from striking similarity, 146 111 , 121 , 216 Argument from sunk costs, 111 ; see also argumentation scheme for, 6 , 18 , 98 , Argument from waste 120 , 220 argumentation scheme for, 105 contra argument to, 53 critical questions for, 105 critical questions for, 6 , 45 , 50 , 67 , described, 104 76–77 , 98 , 220 fallacious, 105–06 discovering, 96 Argument from values erroneously labeled, 95 argumentation scheme for, 257 identifi cation requirements for, 116 Argument from verbal classifi cation, 7 , structure of, 82–83 62 , 111 visually represented, 51 argument scheme for, 132 Argument from ignorance, 100 , 113 , Argument from waste, 107 ; see also 227 , 240 , 245–46 Argument from sunk costs argumentation scheme for, 101 argumentation scheme for, 106 major premise, 101 Argument from witness testimony, 84 Argument from inconsistent argument scheme for, 84–85 commitments, 118 Argument indicators, 277 Argument from lack of evidence Argument mapping, 11 , 20 , 92 , 119 identifi cation requirements for, 117 purpose, 1 Argument from motive to action, 157 Argument mining, 93 , 112 , 115 , 117 , Argument from motive to intent, 160 , 119 , 121 166 , 178 automated tool for, 119–20 Argument from negative consequences, Argumentation 6 , 105 , 108 , 118 , 244 , 255 defi ned, 1 , 182 , 196–97 argumentation scheme for, 102 , 257 dialogical view of, 229 described, 255 pattern of, 215 Argument from negative evidence, 244 Argumentation schemes, 91 , 141, 212 , Argument from negative value, 105 265 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-03930-8 - Methods of Argumentation Douglas Walton Index More information Index 301 commonly used, 94–95 Blood pressure dialogue, 103–04 , 113 confl ict scheme, 115 Blunder, 214 , 216 defeasible, 71 Boiy, E., 112 described, 6 , 164–65 Bound challenge, 58 development of, 96 Bounded procedural rationality, 3 , 196 , rule scheme, 114 198 Argumentum ad ignorantiam, 243–45 Bounded rationality, 3 , 181 Argumentum ad populum, 215 Box and arrow diagram, 10 Argumentum ad verecundian, 233 Bratman, M., 5 Aristotle, 70 , 240 , 241 , 249–50 , 251 Brewer, S., 133 Artifi cial intelligence, 136 , 182 , 226 Burden of persuasion, 9 , 171 , 205 , Ashley, K., 123 , 132 , 135 227–28 , 284 Assertion, 4 , 8 , 15 , 39 , 68–69 , 83 , 90 , Burden of production, 172 , 173 , 206 , 184 , 217, 232 , 264 , 273 208 , 228 Assumption, 60 , 64 , 74 Burden of proof, 146 , 184 , 193 , 201 , applicability, 114 211 , 219 , 227 , 274 closed world, 244 , 246 , 247 allocation of, 194 contextual, 273 global, 205 implicit, 64 , 66 in law, 171 missing, 67 , 72 , 86 reversal of, 239 needed, 64 , 67 rules regarding, 231 Atkinson, K., 156 , 170 , 177 setting, 205 Attack, 60 , 61 shifting, 46 , 77 , 146 , 227 , 238 , 245 , character, 159 246 turn-taking procedure, 37 standard, 208 types of, 43 tactical, 171 , 172 Avicenna, 115 Burden of questioning, 228 Burden rule set, 184 Baseball example, 23 , 123–24 , 127, Burnyeat, M.F., 69–71 130–32 , 134–35 , 140–41 , 143 , 225–26 Calculative Thinking, 216 Beer and wine example, 252 , 255 , 259 Caminada, M.W.A., 39–41 Begging the question, 30 , 223 , 237 Car theft case, 156 , 166 , 168–70 , 174 , Belief, 5 , 197 , 231 178 , 179 characteristics of, 197–98 Cardinal Newman case, 215–16 defi ned, 198 Carneades Argumentation System, 21 , derivation of, 198 24 , 54–55 , 74 , 181 , 197–98 , 286 Belief-desire-intention (BDI) model, 5 , argument defi nition in, 48 154–55 , 175–80 , 231 compared, 18 , 20 Bench-Capon, T., 128 , 129 , 156 , 170 , critical questions, 50 , 146 , 152 , 206 177 , 229 described, 17–18 Bermuda example, 30–31 diagramming, 255 Bex, F., 122 , 137 , 139 , 140 , 152, 156 , dialogue defi ned in, 183 164 , 170 , 171 mapping, 19 , 46–47 , 76 , 157 , 166 Bias, 42 , 43 , 45 , 50 , 87 premise types, 147 Bias critical question, 52 , 77 refutations in, 49 Black, E., 68 , 69 , 194 Case of the drug-sniffi ng dog, 132 , 152 Blair, J.A., 64 , 88 , 251 , 253 Case-based reasoning, 128 , 150 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-03930-8 - Methods of Argumentation Douglas Walton Index More information 302 Index Casey, S., 281 , 283–85 Conditional, 31 CATO, 127 , 149 Conditional rule, 29 CB, 265 , 275 , 278–80 Conjecture, 196 , 243 proposition retraction, 269 Consequences, negative, 158 rules for, 266–67 Context of dialogue, 250 Chaining, 6 , 22 , 72 , 85 , 284 Contra argument, 36 , 52–54 , 76 , 148 , Challenge, 6 , 8 , 58–61 , 88 , 149 , 184 , 150 193 , 208 , 224 , 266 Convergent argument, 16 , 74 Circular argument, 30 , 191 described, 19 Circular chains of reasoning, 223 Copi, I.M., 69 , 82 Circumscription, 226 Counterargument, 28 , 31–33 , 35 , 43 , City Hall case, 98 54 , 145 Claim, 4 , 7–10 , 30 , 56 , 224 , 228–29 , Criteria, 5 , 89 , 200 238 , 245 , 252 , 254 Critical discussion, 239 central, 18 , 22 , 79 , 296 dual aspect of, 219 ultimate, 10 , 22 , 57 , 146 rule violation, 214 Closure component, 277 , 280 Critical questions, 22 , 42 , 141 , 164 Cohen, C., 82 , 215 blocked, 217–18 Commitment, 67 purpose of, 55 arguer’s, 92 strength of, 45–46 audience, 87 Crombag, H.F.M., 137 , 163 basis of, 265 Cumulativeness, 190–91 , 193 dark-side, 280 described, 5 , 231 Datum, 30–31 explicit, 154 , 268–70 , 278 Deductive reasoning, 28 , 110 implicit, 68 , 154 , 270–71 monotonic, 29 inconsistent, 118 , 272 Default logic, 226 indirect, 270 Default rule, 226 provisional, 245 exception to, 239 model, 180 Defeasible arguments, 29, 42 , 93 , 220 , retraction, 191 , 194 , 230 , 237 226–27 , 238 , 244 , 246 Commitment in dialogue, 154 characteristic dialogue sequence Commitment model, 5 , 154–55 , 180 , (DSD), 239 267 Defeasible modus ponens (DMP), 82–83 , Commitment query procedure (or 100 , 109 engine), 268 , 272 , 273 , 276 , 277 , Defeasible reasoning, 280 error of, 241 Commitment rules, 184 , 230 Defeaters, 33 , 48 , 50 , 238 Commitment set, 5 , 18 , 268 rebutting, 27 , 31 , 32 described, 230 undercuttting, 27 , 31 , 32 Commitment store, 37 , 68 , 184 , 200 , Deformations, 133 263 , 267 Deliberation dialogue, 191 inconsistency in, 37 shifts in, 10 Computing, 66 Demonstration, Aristotelian, 191 case-based reasoning, 127 Desecration example, 108 Conclusions, 75 Desires, 5 , 175 acceptance, 4 Dialectical shift, 183 , 202 , 203 , 218 retraction, 226 Dialectical tier, 88–89 , 92 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-03930-8 - Methods of Argumentation Douglas Walton
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Students' Reasoning
    Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education Aikaterini Konstantinidou & Fabrizio Macagno Science & Education Contributions from History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science and Mathematics ISSN 0926-7220 Sci & Educ DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9564-3 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication. 1 23 Author's personal copy Sci & Educ DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9564-3 Understanding Students’ Reasoning: Argumentation Schemes as an Interpretation Method in Science Education Aikaterini Konstantinidou • Fabrizio Macagno Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to investigate the argumentative structure of students’ arguments using argumentation schemes as an instrument for reconstructing the missing premises underlying their reasoning. Building on the recent literature in science education, in order for an explanation to be persuasive and achieve a conceptual change it needs to proceed from the interlocutor’s background knowledge to the analysis of the unknown or wrongly interpreted phenomena. Argumentation schemes represent the abstract forms of the most used and common forms of human reasoning, combining logical principles with semantic concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation
    1 ARGUMENTATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF DELIBERATION DIALOGUE Douglas Walton, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner and Dan Cartwright According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue: persuasion dialogue, negotiation, deliberation, information-seeking dialogue, inquiry, and eristic dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of these types of dialogue and showing how they can be implemented in, for example, multi-agent communications systems. In this paper, we (1) clarify the distinction between deliberation dialogue and persuasion dialogue, (2) survey some recent research in artificial intelligence studying formal properties of deliberation dialogue, (3) present a model of argumentation in deliberation dialogue that has proved to be useful in electronic democracy, and (4) argue that this model provides an attractive alternative to the dominant cost-benefit model of rational argumentation traditionally accepted in economics and other fields as the basis for evaluating argumentation of the kind used in policy decision making. One of the most important lessons of argumentation theory has been that arguments need to be analyzed and evaluated not only by identifying the logical form of an argument in abstraction from its context of use, but also by paying attention to the purpose for which an argument was supposedly used in a conversational setting. In particular, as we will show in this paper, it is vitally important to distinguish between two different types of conversational frameworks called persuasion dialogue and deliberation dialogue. As we will show, logical fallacies can easily be committed in the most common kinds of everyday reasoning by failing to take this distinction into account.
    [Show full text]
  • Justification of Argumentation Schemes
    Justification of Argumentation Schemes D W U W W,M 3 29, C [email protected] Received by Greg Restall Published July 8, 2005 http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/ajl/2005 c 2005 Douglas Walton Abstract: Argumentation schemes are forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, especially defeasible ones like argument from expert opinion, that have proved troublesome to view deductively or inductively. Much practical work has already been done on argumentation schemes, proving their worth in [19], but more pre- cise investigations are needed to formalize their structures. The problem posed in this paper is what form justification of a given scheme, as hav- ing a certain precise structure of inference, should take. It is argued that defeasible argumentation schemes require both a systematic and a prag- matic justification, of a kind that can only be provided by the case study method of collecting key examples of arguments of the types tradition- ally classified as fallacies, and subjecting them to comparative examina- tion and analysis. By this method, postulated structures for schemes can be formulated as hypotheses to solve three kinds of problems: (1) how to classify such arguments into different types, (2) how to identify their premises and conclusions, and (3) how to formulate the critical questions used to evaluate each type of argument. 1 On September 19, 2004, I gave a lecture on informal logic and argumentation to the graduate students of the Institute of Logic and Cognition at Sun Yat- sen University in Guangzhou, China.1 The subject of the lecture included an account of argumentation schemes representing common forms of argument that are neither deductive nor inductive.
    [Show full text]
  • Applications of Argumentation Schemes Chris Reed University of Dundee
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 4 May 17th, 9:00 AM - May 19th, 5:00 PM Applications of Argumentation Schemes Chris Reed University of Dundee Doug Walton University of Winnipeg Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Reed, Chris and Walton, Doug, "Applications of Argumentation Schemes" (2001). OSSA Conference Archive. 97. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA4/papersandcommentaries/97 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: Applications of Argumentation Schemes Authors: Chris Reed, and Doug Walton Response to this paper by: Leo Groarke © 2001 Chris Reed, and Doug Walton ABSTRACT. Argumentation schemes capture common, stereotypical patterns of reasoning which are nondeductive and nonmonotonic. As interest in understanding these schemes from a theoretical point of view grows, so too does an awareness within computational work that these schemes might yield powerful techniques in a range of domains. This paper aims to perform two functions. First, to briefly review the literature on argumentation schemes, including the key works by Hastings, Walton and Kienpointner, and to set it in a broader context, adducing concerns from deductivism and presumptive, nonmonotonic reasoning. The second is to consider the various roles argumentation schemes might play in Artificial Intelligence, and in particular to consider (i) how schemes might be characterized as planning operators in domains such as natural language generation, with operationalized schemes representing means of achieving specific (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Argumentation Schemes As Logic Programs
    Proceedings of CMNA 2016 - Floris Bex, Floriana Grasso, Nancy Green (eds) Implementing Argumentation Schemes as Logic Programs Nancy L. Green University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA [email protected] Abstract audience, as well as constraints of the underlying argumentation scheme [Green, 2010]. Furthermore, The dominant approach to argumentation mining has been to treat it as a text explicitly given components may not occur in classification problem. However some contiguity with other components of the same applications to scientific text, such as argument. In fact, the content of two arguments may accurately summarizing argumentation in be interleaved at the text level. research articles, require a deeper Although human-level understanding of natural understanding of the text. This paper language text is currently beyond the state of the art, provides a novel approach in which we contend that an inference-based approach is argumentation schemes are represented as feasible for scientific applications requiring a deeper logic program rules for use in argumentation analysis of argumentation. In support of this position, mining. The logic programs can be used, not this paper demonstrates a novel approach in which only to recognize fully explicit arguments, argumentation schemes are implemented as logic but also arguments with implicit programs. In addition, this paper explains how this conclusions. This paper presents seven inference-based approach fits into an argumentation implemented rules based on analysis of an mining system architecture. open-access biomedical research article. The rules are specializations of general schemes that can apply to other qualitative 2 Representing Biomedical Arguments causal domains in the natural sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation Schemes. History, Classifications, and Computational Applications
    Argumentation Schemes. History, Classifications, and Computational Applications Fabrizio Macagno Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal [email protected] Douglas Walton University of Windsor, Canada [email protected] Chris Reed University of Dundee, Scotland [email protected] Abstract Argumentation schemes can be described as abstract structures representing the most generic types of argument, constituting the building blocks of the ones used in everyday reasoning. This paper investigates the structure, classification, and uses of such schemes. Three goals are pursued: 1) to describe the schemes, showing how they evolved and how they have been classified in the traditional and the modern theories; 2) to propose a method for classifying them based on ancient and modern developments; and 3) to outline and show how schemes can be used to describe and analyze or produce real arguments. To this purpose, we will build on the traditional distinctions for building a dichotomic classification of schemes, and we will advance a modular approach to argument analysis, in which different argumentation schemes are combined together in order to represent each step of reasoning on which a complex argument relies. Finally, we will show how schemes are applied to formal systems, focusing on their applications to Artificial Intelligence, AI & Law, argument mining, and formal ontologies. Vol. 4 No. 8 2017 IFCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications Macagno, Walton and Reed 1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is threefold: 1) to describe the schemes, showing how they evolved and how they have been classified in the traditional and the modern theories; 2) to propose a method for classifying them based on ancient and modern developments; and 3) to outline and show how schemes are interrelated and can be organized in a modular way to describe natural arguments or produce complex arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Story Schemes for Argumentation About the Facts of a Crime
    Computational Models of Narrative: Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium (FS-10-04) Story Schemes for Argumentation about the Facts of a Crime Floris J. Bex1 and Bart Verheij2 1Argumentation Research Group, School of Computing, University of Dundee Dundee DD1 4HN, United Kingdom [email protected] 2Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen P.O. Box 407, 9700 AK Groningen, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract In the theoretical literature on reasoning about the facts In the literature on reasoning on the basis of evidence, two of criminal cases, two perspectives are prevalent. The first traditions exist: one argument-based, and one based on goes back to Wigmore's work (Wigmore 1931) and has narratives. Recently, we have proposed a hybrid perspective been the basis for much work in the field of legal theory in which argumentation and narratives are combined. This (Anderson et al. 2005). In this argument-based tradition, formalized hybrid theory has been tested in a sense-making evidence is treated as giving reasons for and against the software prototype for criminal investigators and decision facts of the case. In argumentative reasoning, one performs makers. In the present paper, we elaborate on the role of consecutive reasoning steps from the evidence to the facts commonsense knowledge. We argue that two kinds of in issue, using commonsense knowledge to warrant the knowledge are essential: argumentation schemes and story inference steps. By evaluating the justificatory force of schemes. We discuss some of the research issues that need to be addressed. reasons (which depends on the warranting generalizations) and by resolving conflicts between reasons (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation As Argumentation in Closed and Technology-Mediated Open Models
    Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated Open Models Emmanuel D. Adamides1, Nikos I. Karacapilidis1 and Konstantinos Konstantinopoulos1,2 1Industrial Management and Information Systems Lab, MEAD, University of Patras, 26504 Rio Patras, Greece 2Supply Unique S.A., Coffee Island, 26334 Patras, Greece Keywords: Activity Theory, Open Innovation, Technology-mediated Argumentation, Food & Beverages Sector. Abstract: The paper uses activity theory and Activity Based Analysis (ABA) for understanding the contradictions developing, and the corresponding remedial actions required, in the transition of an organization from the closed to the technology-mediated open mode of innovation production. We use activity theory to develop nested representations of the innovation process in both business models, and concentrate on the argumentation-in-innovation activity and its context. We demonstrate the application of ABA in the analysis of contradictions developing in the argumentation processes of a firm in the food and beverages sector adopting open innovation strategies implemented in the innovation community mode. 1 INTRODUCTION creating activity and can be mediated by the technological means employed for exercising it. In a process view, innovation is the result of a series Specific forms of argument exercised frequently, or of coarse-grain interlinked activities (idea by powerful actors, become dominant schemes, generation, selection and conceptualization of characteristics of the organisational discourse (Potter product/service/process, technical development, and Wetherell, 1987), in general, and of innovation launch, value appropriation, etc. (Tidd and Bessant, processes in particular. 2014)), in which “knowledgeable and creative The aim of this paper is to investigate how such people and organizational units frame problems and dominant argumentation schemes influence the select, integrate, and augment information to create general context of the innovation production understanding and answers” (Teece, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn't IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions
    Argumentation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9 Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument 1 1,2,3,4 Shiyang Yu • Frank Zenker Ó The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract Whether abduction is treated as an argument or as an inference, the main- stream view presupposes a tight connection between abduction and inference to the best explanation (IBE). This paper critically evaluates this link and supports a nar- rower view on abduction. Our main thesis is that merely the hypothesis-generative aspect, but not the evaluative aspect, is properly abductive in the sense introduced by C. S. Peirce. We show why equating abduction with IBE (or understanding them as inseparable parts) unnecessarily complicates argument evaluation by levelling the status of abduction as a third reasoning mode (besides deduction and induction). We also propose a scheme for abductive argument along with critical questions, and suggest retaining abduction alongside IBE as related but distinct categories. Keywords Abduction Á Abductive argument Á Critical questions Á Inference to the best explanation Á Peirce Á Scheme 1 Introduction Introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), ‘abduction’ refers to the creative generation of explanatory hypotheses. The term denotes an inference that is ‘‘frequently employed, in some form or other, both in everyday and in scientific & Frank Zenker frank.zenker@fil.lu.se 1 Department of Philosophy, Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 Xingang Road West, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China 2 Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 3 Institute of Philosophy, SAS, Klemensova 19, 813 64 Bratislava, Slovakia 4 Department of Philosophy, Konstanz University, Postfach, D9, 78457 Constance, Germany 123 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching As Abductive Reasoning: the Role of Argumentation Chrysi Rapanta
    Document généré le 30 sept. 2021 03:38 Informal Logic Teaching as Abductive Reasoning: The Role of Argumentation Chrysi Rapanta Volume 38, numéro 2, 2018 Résumé de l'article L'idée que l'argumentation est une pratique de raisonnement souhaitée en URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1057041ar classe est bien documentée dans la littérature. Néanmoins, il n'est toujours pas DOI : https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i2.4849 clair quel type de raisonnement soutient l'argumentation en classe. Dans cet article on discute du raisonnement abductif comme étant le plus adéquat pour Aller au sommaire du numéro que les arguments des élèves émergent dans une discussion en classe. Le raisonnement abductif emploie l'idée de plausibilité et de la révocabilité des prémisses et de la conclusion. En tant que tel, le rôle des enseignants consiste à Éditeur(s) guider les élèves à formuler des hypothèses pertinentes et à sélectionner le plus plausible selon des critères. Les schèmes d'argumentation sont proposés Informal Logic comme des outils utiles dans ce processus. ISSN 0824-2577 (imprimé) 2293-734X (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Rapanta, C. (2018). Teaching as Abductive Reasoning: The Role of Argumentation. Informal Logic, 38(2), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i2.4849 Copyright (c), 2018 Chrysi Rapanta Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifying Arguments by Scheme
    Classifying Arguments by Scheme Vanessa Wei Feng Graeme Hirst Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Toronto University of Toronto Toronto, ON, M5S 3G4, Canada Toronto, ON, M5S 3G4, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Another premise is left implicit — “Adhering to those treaties and covenants is a means of realizing Argumentation schemes are structures or tem- survival of the entire world”. This proposition is an plates for various kinds of arguments. Given enthymeme of this argument. the text of an argument with premises and con- Our ultimate goal is to reconstruct the en- clusion identified, we classify it as an instance thymemes in an argument, because determining of one of five common schemes, using features specific to each scheme. We achieve accura- these unstated assumptions is an integral part of un- cies of 63–91% in one-against-others classifi- derstanding, supporting, or attacking an entire argu- cation and 80–94% in pairwise classification ment. Hence reconstructing enthymemes is an im- (baseline = 50% in both cases). portant problem in argument understanding. We be- lieve that first identifying the particular argumenta- tion scheme that an argument is using will help to 1 Introduction bridge the gap between stated and unstated proposi- tions in the argument, because each argumentation We investigate a new task in the computational anal- scheme is a relatively fixed “template” for arguing. ysis of arguments: the classification of arguments That is, given an argument, we first classify its ar- by the argumentation schemes that they use. An ar- gumentation scheme; then we fit the stated proposi- gumentation scheme, informally, is a framework or tions into the corresponding template; and from this structure for a (possibly defeasible) argument; we we infer the enthymemes.
    [Show full text]
  • My Continuing Journey from Logic to Computational Argumentation
    Felsefe Arkivi Archives of Philosophy Felsefe Arkivi - Archives of Philosophy, Sayı/Issue: 51, 2019 DOI: 10.26650/arcp2019-5123 Deneme / Essay My Continuing Journey from Logic to Computational Argumentation Douglas Walton1 ABSTRACT This paper begins with a brief account of how I started out as a young logician studying modal logic with the hope that it would be useful when applied to evaluating real examples of arguments found in natural language texts. The exposition moves on to relate how my interests shifted to the study of argumentation 1Prof. Dr., Institution, Faculty and/or in informal logic, and from there to computational systems combining defeasible Department, argumentation schemes with argument mapping (diagramming). The story ends City-Country, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, by leading to recent collaborations with three young logicians and computer University of Windsor, Canada scientists who are continuing on the path of my journey. Keywords: Argumentation, informal logic, history of logic, future of logic ORCID: D.W. 0000-0003-0728-1370 Sorumlu yazar/Corresponding author: Douglas Walton, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, Canada E-mail/E-posta: [email protected] Başvuru/Submitted: 23.11.2019 Kabul/Accepted: 02.12.2019 Atıf/Citation: Walton, Douglas. (2019). “My Continuing Journey from Logic to Computational Argumentation” Felsefe Arkivi- Archives of Philosophy, 51: 321-330. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5123 Introduction This paper begins in section 2 with a very brief account of how I started out as a young logician studying modal logic and was corrupted from this pure abstract pursuit by falling in with informal logicians, argumentation scholars and computer scientists who wanted to make logic into a partly practical discipline.
    [Show full text]