Evaluating Practical Reasoning
Synthese 157 (2):197 - 240 (2007)
| Abstract | In this paper, the defeasible argumentation scheme for practical reasoning (Walton 1990) is revised. To replace the old scheme, two new schemes are presented, each with a matching set of critical questions. One is a purely instrumental scheme, while the other is a more complex scheme that takes values into account. It is argued that a given instance of practical reasoning can be evaluated, using schemes and sets of critical questions, in three ways: by attacking one or more premises of the argument, by attacking the inferential link between the premises and conclusion, or by mounting a counter-argument. It is argued that such an evaluation can be carried out in many cases using an argument diagram structure in which all components of the practical reasoning in the case are represented as premises, conclusions, and inferential links between them that can be labeled as argumentation schemes. This system works if every critical question can be classified as a assumption of or an exception to the original argument. However, it is also argued that this system does not work in all cases, namely those where epistemic closure is problematic because of intractable disputes about burden of proof. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesKatie Atkinson & Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (2007). Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation Using Action-Based Alternating Transition Systems. Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):855-874.
Katie Atkinson (2009). Did He Jump or Was He Pushed? Abductive Practical Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
J. Anthony Blair (2001). Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Maria Alvarez (2010). Reasons for Action and Practical Reasoning. Ratio 23 (4):355-373.
Douglas N. Walton (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon (2005). Legal Case-Based Reasoning as Practical Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):93-131.
Floris Bex & Bart Verheij (2012). Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Rachel McKinnon (2011). Lotteries, Knowledge, and Practical Reasoning. Logos and Episteme 2 (2):225-231.
Floris Bex, Trevor Bench-Capon & Katie Atkinson (2009). Did He Jump or Was He Pushed? Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
Bart Streumer (2010). Practical Reasoning. In Timothy O'Connor & Constantine Sandis (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Blackwell.
Douglas Walton (2012). Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26 (3):369-391.
Eddo Rigotti & Sara Greco Morasso (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation 24 (4):489-512.
Robert Audi (1989). Practical Reasoning. Routledge.
Georg Spielthenner (2007). A Logic of Practical Reasoning. Acta Analytica 22 (2):139-153.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-05-29Total downloads8 ( #123,037 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
