From text to scheme

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton ◽  
Marcin Koszowy
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Linguistic Cues ◽  
Common Problems ◽  
Argument From Expert Opinion

Abstract We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.

scholarly journals Informal Logic’s Influence on Philosophy Instruction

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 259 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Anthony Blair
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
Limited Impact ◽  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
Impact On Instruction ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Theoretical Developments

Informal logic began in the 1970s as a critique of then-current theoretical assumptions in the teaching of argument analysis and evaluation in philosophy departments in the U.S. and Canada. The last 35 years have seen significant developments in informal logic and critical thinking theory. The paper is a pilot study of the influence of these advances in theory on what is taught in courses on argument analysis and critical thinking in U.S. and Canadian philosophy departments. Its finding, provisional and much-qualified, is that the theoretical developments and refinements have had limited impact on instruction in leading philosophy departments.

scholarly journals Justification of Argumentation Schemes

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Human Reasoning ◽  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Case Study Method ◽  
Defeasible Argumentation ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Comparative Examination ◽  
Argument From Expert Opinion ◽  
Pragmatic Justification

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 A1 [19], but more precise investigations are needed to formalize their structures. The problem posed in this paper is what form justification of a given scheme, as having a certain precise structure of inference, should take. It is argued that defeasible argumentation schemes require both a systematic and a pragmatic justification, of a kind that can only be provided by the case study method of collecting key examples of arguments of the types traditionally classified as fallacies, and subjecting them to comparative examination 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.

Using Argumentation Schemes for Argument Extraction

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 33-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Practical Reasoning ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Fear Appeal ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Extraction Techniques ◽  
Computational Implementation ◽  
Argument From Expert Opinion

This paper surveys the state-of-the-art of argumentation schemes used as argument extraction techniques in cognitive informatics and uses examples to show how a series of connected problems needs to be solved to move these techniques forward to computational implementation. Some of the schemes considered are argument from expert opinion, practical reasoning, argument from negative consequences, fear appeal arguments, argument from commitment, argument from inconsistent commitments, and the circumstantial ad hominem argument. The paper shows how schemes need to be formed into clusters of sub-schemes work toward a classification system of schemes from the bottom up, and how identification conditions for each scheme can be helpful for argument extraction.

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL AND ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURES IN THE STUDY OF POPULAR SCIENCE DISCOURSE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. S. Kononenko ◽  
◽  
E. A. Sidorova ◽  
I. R. Akhmadeeva ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Popular Science ◽  
Science Texts ◽  
Structured Argumentation ◽  
Level Model ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Key Indicators ◽  
Structural Levels ◽  
Argument From Expert Opinion

The proposed work is performed as a part of an on-going research project aimed at creation of discourse annotated corpus of popular science texts written in Russian. Annotation is carried out within the framework of a multi-level model of discourse, which considers the text from the perspective of genre, rhetorical and argumentative organization. We conduct a comparative study of the rhetorical and argument annotations, discuss their similarities and differences on the segment and structural levels and show them on the examples of standard schemes of reasoning described in D. Walton’s theory of structured argumentation: “Argument from Expert Opinion”, “Argument from Example”, and “Argument from Cause to Effect”. Special attention is paid to discourse markers registered during annotation as key indicators of discourse structure. We report the results of the experiment with argument indicator patterns, based on the list of rhetorical markers, and aimed at the extraction of “from Expert Opinion” arguments.

scholarly journals A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilian Bermejo-Luque
Keyword(s):  
Argument Analysis ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Inductive Types

Following a Toulmian account of argument analysis and evaluation, I offer a general unitary schema for, so called, deductive and inductive types of analogical arguments. This schema is able to explain why certain analogical arguments can be said to be deductive, and yet, also defeasible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document