Developing a Conversational Agent’s Capability to Identify Structural Wrongness in Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Model of Arguments

This article discusses the usefulness of Toulmin’s model of arguments as structuring an assessment of different types of wrongness in an argument. We discuss the usability of the model within a conversational agent that aims to support users to develop a good argument. Within the article, we present a study and the development of classifiers that identify the existence of structural components in a good argument, namely a claim, a warrant (underlying understanding), and evidence. Based on a dataset (three sub-datasets with 100, 1,026, 211 responses in each) in which users argue about the intelligence or non-intelligence of entities, we have developed classifiers for these components: The existence and direction (positive/negative) of claims can be detected a weighted average F1 score over all classes (positive/negative/unknown) of 0.91. The existence of a warrant (with warrant/without warrant) can be detected with a weighted F1 score over all classes of 0.88. The existence of evidence (with evidence/without evidence) can be detected with a weighted average F1 score of 0.80. We argue that these scores are high enough to be of use within a conditional dialogue structure based on Bloom’s taxonomy of learning; and show by argument an example conditional dialogue structure that allows us to conduct coherent learning conversations. While in our described experiments, we show how Toulmin’s model of arguments can be used to identify structural problems with argumentation, we also discuss how Toulmin’s model of arguments could be used in conjunction with content-wise assessment of the correctness especially of the evidence component to identify more complex types of wrongness in arguments, where argument components are not well aligned. Owing to having progress in argument mining and conversational agents, the next challenges could be the developing agents that support learning argumentation. These agents could identify more complex type of wrongness in arguments that result from wrong connections between argumentation components.

Schellenberg's Noseeum Assumption about Nonresistant Nonbelief

In this article, I outline a strategy for challenging J.L. Schellenberg’s hiddenness argument, and specifically the premise within the argument that asserts the existence of what Schellenberg calls nonresistant nonbelief. Drawing on some of the philosophical resources of skeptical theism, I show how this premise is based on a particular “noseeum assumption”—what I call Schellenberg’s Noseeum Assumption—that underwrites a particular “noseeum argument.” This assumption is that, regarding putative nonresistant nonbelievers, more likely than not we’d detect these nonbelievers’ resistance toward God if there were any. I give reasons for thinking that it is not more reasonable to affirm than to refrain from affirming Schellenberg’s Noseeum Assumption, and so reason to think that the hiddenness argument is not a good argument for atheism. I also defend the strategy I outline against several objections.

Rational Interpretation of Numerical Quantity in Argumentative Contexts

Numerical descriptions furnish us with an apparently precise and objective way of summarising complex datasets. In practice, the issue is less clear-cut, partly because the use of numerical expressions in natural language invites inferences that go beyond their mathematical meaning, and consequently quantitative descriptions can be true but misleading. This raises important practical questions for the hearer: how should they interpret a quantitative description that is being used to further a particular argumentative agenda, and to what extent should they treat it as a good argument for a particular conclusion? In this paper, we discuss this issue with reference to notions of argumentative strength, and consider the strategy that a rational hearer should adopt in interpreting quantitative information that is being used argumentatively by the speaker. We exemplify this with reference to United Kingdom universities’ reporting of their REF 2014 evaluations. We argue that this reporting is typical of argumentative discourse involving quantitative information in two important respects. Firstly, a hearer must take into account the speaker’s agenda in order not to be misled by the information provided; but secondly, the speaker’s choice of utterance is typically suboptimal in its argumentative strength, and this creates a considerable challenge for accurate interpretation.

Competitive Routing on a variant of Delaunay Triangulation

The concept of Delaunay triangulation is thought to be currently one of the best implementations in the sampling arena, whether it be technical or a non technical domain. Considering the network congestions which cause a competitive routing in any given area of the network, Delaunay triangulation has come to be proven as a good, if not the best, remedy to solve the mentioned problem. Dr. Prosenjit Bose presented a good argument back in November 2011 where he proved that connecting the nodes of any given network using the concepts of Delaunay Triangulation gave the best path between nodes, taking the least amount of time for the communication and reducing the competitive routing in the network by reducing the spanning ratio and path length by almost 5/sqrt(3). Here in this study we use the concepts of the Delaunay Triangulation to design a Java application which analyses given a set of random nodes in a plane, it connects each of them with the use of Delaunay Triangulation so that the nodes have the best path to communicate with each other.

Competitive Routing on a variant of Delaunay Triangulation

The concept of Delaunay triangulation is thought to be currently one of the best implementations in the sampling arena, whether it be technical or a non technical domain. Considering the network congestions which cause a competitive routing in any given area of the network, Delaunay triangulation has come to be proven as a good, if not the best, remedy to solve the mentioned problem. Dr. Prosenjit Bose presented a good argument back in November 2011 where he proved that connecting the nodes of any given network using the concepts of Delaunay Triangulation gave the best path between nodes, taking the least amount of time for the communication and reducing the competitive routing in the network by reducing the spanning ratio and path length by almost 5/sqrt(3). Here in this study we use the concepts of the Delaunay Triangulation to design a Java application which analyses given a set of random nodes in a plane, it connects each of them with the use of Delaunay Triangulation so that the nodes have the best path to communicate with each other.

On St. Isaac The Syrian’s Argument Against Divine Retribution

Many theists maintain that God punishes humans retributively, whereby God intentionally harms those punished as their sins deserve, without also aiming qua punishment to contribute to the immediate or ultimate flourishing of those punished, or to the flourishing of some third (human) party. By contrast, St. Isaac the Syrian in effect contends that such an understanding of divine retribution is incompatible with a plausible understanding of God’s initial creative purposes of love and is thus untrue. In this paper, I present and substantially build upon Isaac’s contention, and I defend the resulting developed argument as a good argument worthy of further consideration.

Zeno Beach

On Zeno Beach there are infinitely many grains of sand, each half the size of the last. Supposing Aristotle denied the possibility of Zeno Beach, did he have a good argument for the denial? Three arguments, each of ancient origin, are examined: (1) the beach would be infinitely large; (2) the beach would be impossible to walk across; (3) the beach would contain a part equal to the whole, whereas parts must be lesser. It is attempted to show that none of these arguments was Aristotle’s. Indeed, perhaps Aristotle’s finitism applied to magnitude only, not plurality.

Engaging policy makers: how to make the message pass?

Vaccination remains a serious matter of concern from a relevant part of the population, therefore a quite delicate issue for policy-makers. The paradox between vaccination success and vaccination hesitancy is a current issue: the more vaccination has been successful in eliminating or reducing the incidence of diseases the lower the perception of risk among younger parents' cohorts that never saw diseases for which their children are requested to be vaccinated. This hesitancy is reflected in the politicians' space, as they are quite reluctant to impose measures that will target the mass of healthy young children potentially raising negative reaction from the parent's population. Financial issues are not a concern in the rich world: vaccination global budget is a small fraction of the running health expenditures; money is still a problem in developing countries, but there population and politicians do accept happily donation for new vaccination campaigns. But the situation is quickly changing: in the northern hemisphere, despite the growth of vaccination hesitancy seven new vaccines have been successfully introduced in the last decade (e.g. Chickenpox, HPV, Rotavirus) and new ones are close to introduction (e.g. Herpes Zoster, Gonorrhea, Norovirus, RSV). Are policy-maker changing the traditional reluctant attitude against new vaccines? Few factors have been underlined in the last decade: Vaccination cost-benefit analysis offer politicians a good argument to show they are working for the population health.Mathematical models are becoming frequently used tools to show the economic gain of vaccination.The consequences of fake news and antivaccine narrative are warning politicians for more respect for science.Newly emerging epidemic diseases are increasing population confidence for public health interventions. Those factors are influencing health communication and could become useful tools to complement policy-makers' strategies.

What counts as a “good” argument in school?—how teachers grade students’ mathematical arguments

As argumentation is an activity at the heart of mathematics, (not only) German school curricula request students to construct mathematical arguments, which get evaluated by teachers. However, it remains unclear which criteria teachers use to decide on a specific grade in a summative assessment setting. In this paper, we draw on two sources for these criteria: First, we present theoretically derived dimensions along which arguments can be assessed. Second, a qualitative interview study with 16 teachers from German secondary schools provides insights in their criteria developed in practice. Based on the detailed presentation of the case of one teacher, the paper then illustrates how criteria developed in practice take a variety of different aspects into account and also correspond with the theoretically identified dimensions. The findings are discussed in terms of implications for the teaching and learning about mathematical argumentation in school and university: An emphasis on more pedagogical criteria in high school offers one explanation to the perceived gap between school and university level mathematics.

READING DISORDERS AND DYSLEXIA IN THE PROCESS OF READING SKILLS ACQUISITION

The paper describes research on the situation in the primary education classrooms of Latvian educational institutions regarding the detection and correction of reading disorders and dyslexia in the framework of the Erasmus + K2 project "Dyslexia Assessment Protocol (DAP)" (2019-1-LV01-KA201-060355). The results of research showed that the behaviour of primary school teachers in situations, when reading disorders are identified, varies, but most of the correction work and support in educational institutions is provided by the speech therapist. It is important to carry out the professional development of primary school teachers by providing an understanding of the terms "reading disorders" and "dyslexia", knowledge of further actions in reading disorders and dyslexia cases, support opportunities for pupils and parents, as well as collaboration with a speech therapist. Teachers recognize the need for a common methodological material for native language teachers for work with children with reading disorders or dyslexia in order to ensure that teachers, regardless of professional experience or knowledge, work as homogeneous as possible. It would also serve as a good argument for talking to pupils' parents.