Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry.Axel Gelfert - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
    This paper argues that the problem of expertise calls for a rapprochement between social epistemology and argumentation theory. Social epistemology has tended to emphasise the role of expert testimony, neglecting the argumentative function of appeals to expert opinion by non-experts. The first half of the paper discusses parallels and contrasts between the two cases of direct expert testimony and appeals to expert opinion by our epistemic peers, respectively. Importantly, appeals to expert opinion need to be advertised as such, if they (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence.Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang - 2016 - Ratio Juris 29 (1):59-82.
    Tribunals have come to depend increasingly on expertise for determining the facts in cases. However, current legal methods have proved problematic to work with. This paper argues that, as a special model of public understanding of science, assessing expertise should consider source credibility of expertise from internal aspects, including scientific validity and reliability, and external aspects involving the credibility of experts. Using the Carneades Argumentation System we show that the internal and the external aspects are mediated by the structure of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning.Douglas Walton, Christopher W. Tindale & Thomas F. Gordon - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):85-119.
    Plausible (eikotic) reasoning known from ancient Greek (late Academic) skeptical philosophy is shown to be a clear notion that can be analyzed by argumentation methods, and that is important for argumentation studies. It is shown how there is a continuous thread running from the Sophists to the skeptical philosopher Carneades, through remarks of Locke and Bentham on the subject, to recent research in artificial intelligence. Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration.Ulrike Hahn, Adam J. L. Harris & Adam Corner - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367.
    Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts that argument content and source reliability (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction.Douglas Walton - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):317-340.
    Even though tools for identifying and analyzing arguments are now in wide use in the field of argumentation studies, so far there is a paucity of resources for evaluating real arguments, aside from using deductive logic or Bayesian rules that apply to inductive arguments. In this paper it is shown that recent developments in artificial intelligence in the area of computational systems for modeling defeasible argumentation reveal a different approach that is currently making interesting progress. It is shown how these (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks.Norman Fenton, Martin Neil & David A. Lagnado - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (1):61-102.
    A Bayesian network (BN) is a graphical model of uncertainty that is especially well suited to legal arguments. It enables us to visualize and model dependencies between different hypotheses and pieces of evidence and to calculate the revised probability beliefs about all uncertain factors when any piece of new evidence is presented. Although BNs have been widely discussed and recently used in the context of legal arguments, there is no systematic, repeatable method for modeling legal arguments as BNs. Hence, where (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Trust, Argumentation and Technology.Fabio Paglieri - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):119-122.
  • Encuentros cercanos con argumentos del "tercer tipo": razonamiento plausible y probabilidad subjetiva como modelos de evaluación de argumentos.Christian Gaviria & William Jiménez-Leal - 2014 - Critica 46 (137):85-112.
    Este artículo presenta un análisis comparativo de los modelos de argumentación basados en las nociones de probabilidad subjetiva y de razonamiento plausible. Se hacen explícitos los “parecidos de familia” entre probabilidad y plausibilidad, y se examinan las diferencias en las prescripciones invocadas para la evaluación de tres tipos de falacias informales: apelación a la autoridad, a la popularidad y petición de principio. Se concluye que el razonamiento plausible, como Rescher y Walton lo describen, no proporciona una alternativa sólida a la (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Experts in Dialogue: An Introduction. [REVIEW]Gábor Kutrovátz & Gábor Á Zemplén - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):275-283.
    Different approaches to expertise and argumentation are discussed. After introducing the problem of expertise and its present day significance in a historical context, various connections with the study of arguments are highlighted. The need for and potential of argumentation analysis to contribute to existing research in social epistemology, science studies, and cognitive science, is discussed, touching on the problems of reasoning and argumentation, embodiment, tacit knowledge, expert context versus public context, expert disagreement, persuasion versus justification, and argument analysis as meta-expertise. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Oral History and The Epistemology of Testimony.Tim Kenyon - 2016 - Social Epistemology 30 (1):45-66.
    Social epistemology has paid little attention to oral historiography as a source of expert insight into the credibility of testimony. One extant suggestion, however, is that oral historians treat testimony with a default trust reflecting a standing warrant for accepting testimony. The view that there is such a standing warrant is sometimes known as the Acceptance Principle for Testimony. I argue that the practices of oral historians do not count in support of APT, all in all. Experts have commonly described (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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   11 citations  
  • Presumptions in Legal Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300.
    In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices that may (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Modeling Corroborative Evidence: Inference to the Best Explanation as Counter–Rebuttal.David Godden - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):187-220.
    Corroborative evidence has a dual function in argument. Primarily, it functions to provide direct evidence supporting the main conclusion. But it also has a secondary, bolstering function which increases the probative value of some other piece of evidence in the argument. This paper argues that the bolstering effect of corroborative evidence is legitimate, and can be explained as counter–rebuttal achieved through inference to the best explanation. A model (argument diagram) of corroborative evidence, representing its structure and operation as a schematic (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation