David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):311 - 343 (2012)
Bayesian probability has recently been proposed as a normative theory of argumentation. In this article, we provide a Bayesian formalisation of the ad Hitlerum argument, as a special case of the ad hominem argument. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that people's evaluation of the argument is sensitive to probabilistic factors deemed relevant on a Bayesian formalisation. Moreover, we provide the first parameter-free quantitative evidence in favour of the Bayesian approach to argumentation. Quantitative Bayesian prescriptions were derived from participants' stated subjective probabilities (Experiments 1 and 2), as well as from frequency information explicitly provided in the experiment (Experiment 3). Participants' stated evaluations of the convincingness of the argument were well matched to these prescriptions
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu (2015). The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach. Cognitive Science 40 (1):n/a-n/a.
Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn (2013). Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others? Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx (2016). A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation. Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
Similar books and articles
Jon Williamson (2006). Combining Argumentation and Bayesian Nets for Breast Cancer Prognosis. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (1-2):155-178.
Matt Williams & Jon Williamson (2006). Combining Argumentation and Bayesian Nets for Breast Cancer Prognosis. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (1-2):155-178.
D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
Patrick Maher (2010). Bayesian Probability. Synthese 172 (1):119 - 127.
Gregor Betz (2008). Evaluating Dialectical Structures with Bayesian Methods. Synthese 163 (1):25 - 44.
R. Festa (1993). Optimum Inductive Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
Daniel Steel (2007). Bayesian Confirmation Theory and the Likelihood Principle. Synthese 156 (1):53 - 77.
Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford (2006). A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies. Synthese 152 (2):207 - 236.
Branden Fitelson (1999). The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):378.
Branden Fitelson (2001). Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Branden Fitelson (2001). A Bayesian Account of Independent Evidence with Applications. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S123-.
Added to index2012-06-13
Total downloads24 ( #158,482 of 1,796,259 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #169,168 of 1,796,259 )
How can I increase my downloads?