Bayesian Argumentation-Scheme Networks: A Probabilistic Model of Argument Validity Facilitated by Argumentation Schemes

Story Similarity in Arguments from Analogy

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v32i2.3159 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 32 (2) ◽

pp. 190 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Douglas Walton

Keyword(s):

Hybrid Model ◽

Common Knowledge ◽

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Abstract Representations ◽

Argument From Analogy ◽

Model Similarity

In this paper a hybrid model of argument from analogy is presented that combines argumentation schemes and story schemes. One premise of the argumentation scheme for argument from analogy in the model claims that one case is similar to another. Story schemes are abstract representations of stories (narratives, explanations) based on common knowledge about how sequences of actions and events we are familiar with can normally be expected to unfold. Story schemes are used (a) to model similarity between two cases, and (2) as the basis of evidence to support the similarity premise of an argument from analogy. Four examples of argument from analogy are used to test the theory.

Download Full-text

A Simple Theory of Argument Schemes

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v41i4.6671 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 41 (4) ◽

pp. 539-578

Author(s):

Geoff Goddu

Keyword(s):

Simple Theory ◽

Complete Theory ◽

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Argument Schemes ◽

Fundamental Part ◽

Minimalist Theory

While there has been in depth discussion of many particular argumentation schemes, some lament that there is little to no theory underpinning the notion of an argumentation scheme. Here I shall argue against the utility of argument schemes, at least as a fundamental part of a complete theory of arguments. I shall also present and defend a minimalist theory of their nature—a scheme is just a set of proposition expressions and propositional functions. While simple, the theory contravenes several typical desiderata of argumentation schemes such as (i) aiding in the identification of enthymemes and (ii) keeping arguments constrained to a manageable taxonomy. So much the worse for the desiderata. Instead, I shall recommend focusing less on schemes and more on the component propositional functions.

Download Full-text

Epistemic and deontic authority in the argumentum ad verecundiam

Pragmatics and Society ◽

10.1075/ps.16051.kos ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 287-315

Author(s):

Marcin Koszowy ◽

Douglas Walton

Keyword(s):

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Critical Questions ◽

Informal Fallacy ◽

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam ◽

Deontic Authority

Abstract The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

Download Full-text

Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v21i2.2241 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 21 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Douglas Walton

Keyword(s):

Current Practice ◽

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

History Of ◽

The Subject ◽

Relationship Of ◽

The Relationship

Current practice in logic increasingly accords recognition to abductive, presumptive or plausible arguments, in addition to deductive and inductive arguments. But there is uncertainty about what these terms exactly mean, what the differences between them are (if any), and how they relate. By examining some analyses ofthese terms and some of the history of the subject (including the views of Peirce and Cameades), this paper sets out considerations leading to a set of definitions, discusses the relationship of these three forms of argument to argumentation schemes and sets out a new argumentation scheme for abductive argument.

Download Full-text

Argumentationsindikatoren in deutschen, polnischen und englischen Interviews. Versuch einer vergleichenden Analyse nach der pragma-dialektischen Typologie der Argumentationsschemata

Germanica Wratislaviensia ◽

10.19195/0435-5865.143.8 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 143 ◽

pp. 119-133

Author(s):

Bartosz Buć

Keyword(s):

Comparative Analysis ◽

Causal Relation ◽

Effective Means ◽

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Argumentation Analysis

Um Textpassagen in Bezug auf ihre argumentative Funktion zu untersuchen, braucht man geeignete Werkzeuge, die als argumentative Indikatoren verstanden werden können. Ihre Rolle als wirksames Mittel der Argumentationsanalyse wurde in einigen Beiträgen beschrieben. Allerdings ist die Frage, ob sie in verschiedenen Sprachen anwendbar sind, noch nicht beantwortet. Nach der Pragma-Dialektik kann jede Argumentation auf ein bestimmtes Argumentationsschema zurückgeführt werden. Darum kann die Argumentation auf einer Analogie, einem Kausalverhältnis und einem symptomatischen Verhältnis beruhen. Darüber hinaus gibt es typische Argumentationsschemata, die angewendet werden können, um festzustellen, welche Art von Argument verwendet wird. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Arbeit steht die Zusammenstellung von Indikatoren für drei Argumentationsschemata. So wird versucht, auf der Grundlage der Analyse von Interviews zu bestimmen, welche Wörter und Phrasen für die Identifizierung der Art der Argumentation nützlich sein können.Argumentative indicators in German, Polish and English interviews. Attempt of a comparative analysis according to the pragma-dialectical typology of the argumentation schemesTo examine passages of text in terms of its argumentative function one needs appropriate tools understood as argumentative indicators. Their role as an effective means of the argumentation analysis has been described in some contributions. However, the question if they are applicable in different languages, has not been answered yet. According to the pragma-dialectics every argumentation can be attributed to a specific argumentation scheme. Therefore, argumentation can be based on: a relation of analogy, a causal relation and a symptomatic relation. Furthermore, there are typical argumentative models that can be applied in order to determine what type of argument is used. The focus of this paper is to compile indicators of three argumentation schemes. Thus, it is attempted to determine on the basis of the analysis of interviews, which words and phrases can be useful for identifying the type of argumentation.

Download Full-text

Arguing from Definition to Verbal Classification: The Case of Redefining 'Planet' to Exclude Pluto

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v28i2.550 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 28 (2) ◽

pp. 129 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Douglas Walton

Keyword(s):

Artificial Intelligence ◽

Scientific Argumentation ◽

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Rational Argumentation

The recent redefinition of 'planet' that excludes Pluto as a planet led to controversy that provides a case study of how competing scientific definitions can be supported by characteristic types of evidence. An argumentation scheme from Hastings is used to analyze argument from verbal classification as a form of inference used in rational argumentation. The Toulmin-style format is compared to more recently developed ways of modeling such cases that stem from advances in argumentation technology in artificial intelligence. Usingthese tools, it is shown how argumentation schemes, in particularargument from verbal classification and argument from definition to verbal classification, apply to cases of scientific argumentation.

Download Full-text

Argument Schemes from the Point of View of Hamblin’s Dialectic

Informal Logic ◽

10.22329/il.v31i4.3363 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 344 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jan A. Van Laar

Keyword(s):

Point Of View ◽

Argumentation Schemes ◽

Argumentation Scheme ◽

Argument Schemes ◽

Dialectical Philosophy ◽

Normative Account

This paper aims at a normative account of non-deductive argumentation schemes in the spirit of Hamblin’s dialectical philosophy. First, three principles are presented that characterize Hamblin’s dialectical stance. Second, argumentation schemes, which have hardly been examined in Hamblin’s book Fallacies, shall be dealt with by applying these principles, taking an argumentation scheme from authority as the leading example. Third, a formal dialectical system, along the lines indicated by Hamblin, shall be developed that includes norms for using argumentation schemes and norms for responding to arguments that are presented as instantiating acceptable argumentation schemes.

Download Full-text