Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. On the Prospect of an Experimental Account of Argumentation. Commentary: Toward an Experimental Account of Argumentation: The Case of the Slippery Slope and the Ad Hominem Arguments.John Ian K. Boongaling - 2016 - Frontiers in Psychology 7.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Bayesian Approach to Absent Evidence Reasoning.Christopher Lee Stephens - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (1):56-65.
    Normal 0 0 1 85 487 UBC 4 1 598 11.773 0 0 0 Under what conditions is the failure to have evidence that p evidence that p is false? Absent evidence reasoning is common in many sciences, including astronomy, archeology, biology and medicine. An often-repeated epistemological motto is that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Analysis of absent evidence reasoning usually takes place in a deductive or frequentist hypothesis-testing framework. Instead, I develop a Bayesian analysis of (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights From the Wild.Frank Zenker - forthcoming - Logic and Logical Philosophy.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Truth and the Virtue of Arguments.Robert C. Pinto - unknown
    In a 2006 paper I claimed that the virtue arguments or inferences must have is not that they be truth-preserving, but that they be entitlement-preserving. I offered two reasons there why such a conception of argument virtue is needed for a satisfactory treatment of defeasible arguments and inferences. This paper revisits that claim, and assesses the prospects for a more thorough defence than was offered in that paper.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
    Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education.Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
    The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
    In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation. Three sample argumentation schemes from the literature are discussed: the argument from sign, the argument from expert opinion, and the appeal to popular opinion. Limitations of the scheme-based treatment of these argument forms are identified and it is shown how a Bayesian perspective may help to overcome these. At the same time, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Arguing About the Likelihood of Consequences: Laypeople's Criteria to Distinguish Strong Arguments From Weak Ones.Hans Hoeken, Ester Šorm & Peter Jan Schellens - 2014 - Thinking and Reasoning 20 (1):77-98.
    High-quality arguments have strong and lasting persuasive effects, suggesting that people can distinguish high- from low-quality arguments. However, we know little of what norms people employ to make that distinction. Some studies have shown that, in evaluating arguments from consequences, people are more sensitive to differences with respect to the desirability of these consequences than to differences in the likelihood that these consequences will occur. This raises the question of whether people lack the criteria to distinguish high-quality from low-quality arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Rational Argument, Rational Inference.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Mike Oaksford - 2013 - Argument and Computation 4 (1):21 - 35.
    (2013). Rational argument, rational inference. Argument & Computation: Vol. 4, Formal Models of Reasoning in Cognitive Psychology, pp. 21-35. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.689327.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Credence for Conclusions: A Brief for Jeffrey’s Rule.John R. Welch - forthcoming - Synthese:1-22.
    Some arguments are good; others are not. How can we tell the difference? This article advances three proposals as a partial answer to this question. The proposals are keyed to arguments conditioned by different degrees of uncertainty: mild, where the argument’s premises are hedged with point-valued probabilities; moderate, where the premises are hedged with interval probabilities; and severe, where the premises are hedged with non-numeric plausibilities such as ‘very likely’ or ‘unconfirmed’. For mild uncertainty, the article proposes to apply a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Because Hitler Did It! Quantitative Tests of Bayesian Argumentation Using Ad Hominem.Adam J. L. Harris, Anne S. Hsu & Jens K. Madsen - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):311 - 343.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others?Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2013 - Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
    Norms—that is, specifications of what we ought to do—play a critical role in the study of informal argumentation, as they do in studies of judgment, decision-making and reasoning more generally. Specifically, they guide a recurring theme: are people rational? Though rules and standards have been central to the study of reasoning, and behavior more generally, there has been little discussion within psychology about why (or indeed if) they should be considered normative despite the considerable philosophical literature that bears on this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Message Framing, Normative Advocacy and Persuasive Success.Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):153-163.
    In a recent article in Argumentation, O’Keefe (Argumentation 21:151–163, 2007) observed that the well-known ‘framing effects’ in the social psychological literature on persuasion are akin to traditional fallacies of argumentation and reasoning and could be exploited for persuasive success in a way that conflicts with principles of responsible advocacy. Positively framed messages (“if you take aspirin, your heart will be more healthy”) differ in persuasive effect from negative frames (“if you do not take aspirin, your heart will be less healthy”), (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations