Abstract
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, the contributions of the standard scheme-based approach are highlighted, and it is argued that only a combination of the insights of different traditions will yield a complete normative theory of argument quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In first instance, probabilities—as degrees of belief—are subjective, and the probability calculus is about coherence, in the same way that classical logic is about the relationships between statements, not their truth or falsity per se. However, it is typically assumed that a rational agent should adopt as her subjective degree of belief objective probabilities (limit frequencies) where these are defined, see e.g., Lewis (1980).
Posterior odds convert into posterior degrees of belief via the simple relationship \(P(A) = Odds(A)/(1+Odds(A))\).
This is not to say, however, that alternative frameworks have not been put forward, see e.g., Schum (1994).
For continuous variables correlation is defined as \({\textit{rAB}}=\frac{E(A,B)-E(A)E(B)}{\sqrt{E(A^{2})-(E(A)})^{2}\sqrt{E(B^{2})-(E(B))^{2}}}\) where E(A) is the expected value of A, Specifically, independence implies zero correlation, but the converse is not necessarily true. Variables can be systematically related, and hence non-independent, in ways not captured by (linear) correlation (e.g., x and y in \({y=sin(x)}\)). This also suggests that independence, as the more general notion, is preferable to correlation as the basis for the argument from sign.
\(P(A{\vert }B)=P(A,B)/P(B)\)
To put this more formally, one might think of a generalization such as “If A, then generally B” as saying that \({P(B{\vert }A)}\) is high. On observing A, the probability we should now assign to B will be \({P(B{\vert }A)}\), exactly as (defeasible) modus ponens suggests. However, whether A provides a reason for believing B, depends on whether \({P(B{\vert }A)}\) is greater than P(B) in the first place, and that depends on the likelihood ratio being greater than 1, i.e., that \({P(B{\vert }A) > P(B{\vert } \lnot A)}\). On modus ponens and other conditional inferences from a probabilistic perspective see e.g., Oaksford and Chater (1994), Evans and Over (2004) and, specifically in an argumentation context Hahn and Oaksford (2012).
Bayesian Belief Networks simplify multi-variable computations by taking into account dependence and independence relations within a graphical representation (for an introduction see e.g., Pearl 1988 or Korb and Nicholson 2003). The nodes in a network such as that in Fig. 2 represent random variables. The directed arrows (links) between them signify (assumed) direct causal influences and the strengths of these influences are quantified by conditional probabilities. Each variable is assigned a link matrix that represents estimates of the conditional probabilities of the events associated with that variable given any value combination of the parent variables’ states. These matrices together provide a joint distribution function: a complete and consistent global model, on the basis of which all probabilistic queries can be answered.
Within the scheme-based tradition Hastings (1962, p. 143) also considers both schemes to be related to “causal relations which are used as generalizations to justify the conclusion on the basis of the premises”.
Further examples of the dissociation between logical validity and inductive strength to those given thus far are the so-called paradoxes of material implication, see Oaksford and Hahn (2007).
These seem largely based on consideration of characteristics of probability in the context of logical inference, rather than, as advocated here, Bayesian conditionalization. For example, Pollock’s arguments about how multiple, independent, premises lead rapidly to improbable conclusions assume that the relationship between premises and conclusions is conceived of as a logical inference from a conjunction, not as a conditional probability. In general, believing more things does not inherently imply greater risk of error, see e.g., Bovens and Olsson (2002).
Hahn and Oaksford (2007b) argue, among other things, that the notion of burden of proof is inherently tied to action, stemming in law from the need to make a decision. Where a decision is required, the utilities associated with various courses of action provide ‘burdens of proof’. Where a decision is not immediately required, the notion is forced, and there are no normatively compelling reasons for determining either levels of proof required, or who should carry them.
Carneades can handle such accrual of evidence for cumulative arguments if an argument for every member of the powerset of the pieces of evidence is included in the argument graph, see also Gordon and Walton (2009).
By contrast, Walton and Gordon (2014) explicitly highlight ‘relevance’ as a key issue that still needs to be formally modelled within Carneades.
This is not to deny that there may be contexts, such as the law, in which distinguishing between being ‘in a position to know’ and ‘being expert’ might be meaningful (see e.g., Godden and Walton 2006). However, in order to justify different argument schemes there must minimally be some consequential difference to either the basic inference or the critical questions.
References
Alexy, R. (1989). A theory of legal argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Atkinson, D., & Peijnenburg, J. (2010). Justification by infinite loops. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 51, 407–416.
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 125–165.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.
Bolstad, W. M. (2004). Introduction to Bayesian statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bovens, L., & Olsson, E. J. (2002). Believing more, risking less: On coherence, truth and non-trivial extensions. Erkenntnis, 57, 137–150.
Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Yuille, A. (2006). Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 287–291.
Christmann, U., Mischo, C., & Flender, J. (2000a). Argumentational integrity: A training program for dealing with unfair argumentational contributions. Argumentation, 14, 339–360.
Christmann, U., Mischo, C., & Groeben, N. (2000b). Components of the evaluation of integrity violations in argumentative discussions: Relevant factors and their relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 315–341.
Clemen, R. T. (1989). Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Forecasting, 5, 559–583.
Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, uncertainty, and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 199–212.
Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2013). Normative theories of argumentation: Are some norms better than others? Synthese, 190, 3579–3610.
Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 153–170.
de Condorcet, N. C. (1785). Essai sur l’Application de l’Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.
Dennett, D. C. (1984). Cognitive wheels: The frame problem of AI. In C. Hookaway (Ed.), Minds, machines and evolution (pp. 129–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont, CA: Thompson/ Wadsworth.
Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or bust?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ehninger, D. (1974). Influence, belief, and argument: an introduction to responsible persuasion. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Ehningner, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Evans, J. St B T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Falk, R., & Well, A. D. (1997). Many faces of the correlation coefficient. Journal of Statistics Education, 5(3), 1–18.
Fitelson, B. (1996). Wayne, Horwich and evidential diversity. Philosophy of Science, 63, 652–660.
Forsythe, R., Nelson, F., Neumann, G. R., & Wright, J. (1992). Anatomy of an experimental political stock market. The American Economic Review, 82, 1142–1161.
Fox, J., & Das, S. (2000). Safe and sound. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
Freeman, J. B. (1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 263–273). University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450–451.
Garssen, B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 149–167.
Godden, D. M., & Walton, D. N. (2006). Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: Critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system. Ratio Juris, 19, 261–286.
Gordon, K. (1924). Group judgments in the field of lifted weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 398–400.
Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2009). Proof burdens and standards. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 239–260). Berlin: Springer.
Gordon, T., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–896.
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psycho-physics. New York: Wiley.
Grofman, B., Owen, G., & Feld, S. L. (1983). Thirteen theorems in search of the truth. Theory and Decision, 15, 261–278.
Hahn, U. (2011). The problem of circularity in evidence, argument and explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 172–182.
Hahn, U. (2014). The Bayesian boom: Good thing or bad? Frontiers in Cognitive Science, 5, Article 765.
Hahn, U., Harris, A. J. L., & Corner, A. J. (2009). Argument content and argument source: An exploration. Informal Logic, 29, 337–367.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006a). A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207–236.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006b). Why a normative theory of argument strength and why might one want it to be Bayesian? Informal Logic, 26, 1–24.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007a). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007b). The burden of proof and its role in argumentation. Argumentation, 21, 39–61.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2012). Rational argument. In Holyoak & Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford: Oxford university Press.
Hahn, U., Oaksford, M. & Bayindir, H. (2005). How convinced should we be by negative evidence? In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the cognitive science society.
Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Harris, A. J. (2013). Testimony and argument: A Bayesian perspective. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hajek, A. (2008). Dutch book arguments. In P. Anand, P. Pattanaik, & C. Puppe (Eds.), The handbook of rational and social choice (pp. 173–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hardman, D. (2009). Judgment and decision making: Psychological perspectives. Chichester: BPS Blackwell.
Harris, A. J. L., Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2013). James is polite and punctual (and useless): A Bayesian formalisation of faint praise. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 414–429.
Harris, A. J. L., Hahn, U., Hsu, A. S., & Madsen, J. K. (2015). The appeal to expert opinion: Quantitative support for a Bayesian network approach. Cognitive Science.
Harris, A. J. L., Hsu, A. S., & Madsen, J. K. (2012). Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 311–343.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Hoeken, H., Sorm, E., & Schellens, P. J. (2014). Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople’s criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 77–98.
Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 394–416.
Hogarth, R. (1978). A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40–46.
Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443–463.
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. H. (2009). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Joensson, M., Hahn, U. & Olsson, E. (2015). The kind of group you want to belong to: Effects of group structure on group accuracy. Cognition. Online first.
Kadane, J. B., & Schum, D. A. (1996). A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. Chichester: Wiley.
Katzav, J., & Reed, C. A. (2004). On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18, 239–259.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.
Knill, D. C., & Richards, W. (Eds.). (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korb, K. (2004). Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic, 23, 41–70.
Korb, K. B., & Nicholson, A. E. (2003). Bayesian artificial intelligence. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Korb, K. B., McConachy, R. & Zukerman, I. (1997). A cognitive model of argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 400–405).
Ladha, K. K. (1992). The Condorcet jury theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 617–634.
Laplace, P. S. (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities (F. W. Truscott & F. L. Emory, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1814).
Leitgeb, H., & Pettigrew, R. (2010). An objective justification of Bayesianism II: The consequences of minimizing inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science, 77, 236–272.
Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Richard C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Studies in inductive logic and probability (Vol. II, pp. 263–293). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance, 1920–1957. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337–372.
McConachy, R., & Zukerman, I. (1999). Towards a dialogue capability in a Bayesian argumentation system. ETAI 3—Electronic Transactions of Artificial Intelligence (Section D), 3, 89–124.
McConachy, R., Korb, K. B., & Zukerman, I. (1998). Deciding what not to say: An attentional-probabilistic approach to argument presentation. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 669–674), Madison, Wisconsin.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74.
Myrvold, W. C. (1996). Bayesianism and diverse evidence: A reply to Andrew Wayne. Philosophy of Science, 63, 661–665.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84–106.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of Learning Sciences, 20, 443–488.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.
Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2004). A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 75–85.
Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2007). Induction, deduction and argument strength in human reasoning and argumentation. In A. Feeney, & E. Heit (Eds.), Inductive reasoning (pp. 269–301). Cambridge University Press.
Olsson, E. J. (2002). What is the problem of coherence and truth? Journal of Philosophy, 94, 246–272.
Olsson, E. J., & Schubert, S. (2007). Reliability conducive measures of coherence. Synthese, 157, 297–308.
Olsson, E. J. (2005). Against coherence: Truth, probability, and justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page, S. E. (2005). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Prakken, H. (2005). AI & law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation, 19, 303–320.
Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2002). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 219–318). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rahwan, I., & Simari, G. R. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer.
Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13, 961–980.
Reinard, J. C. (1991). Foundations of argument: Effective communication for critical thinking. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1984). Argumentation and the decision making process. New York: Harper Collins.
Rosenkrantz, R. D. (1992). The justification of induction. Philosophy of Science, 59, 527–539.
Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht: Foris.
Schum, D. A. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2000). State-of-the-art: The structure of argumentation. Argumentation, 14, 447–473.
Stroop, J. R. (1932). Is the judgment of the group better than that of the average member of the group? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 550–562.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Treynor, J. L. (1987). Market efficiency and the bean jar experiment. Financial Analysts Journal, 43, 50–53.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verheij, B. (2003a). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: Towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren, A. Blair, C. Willard, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 1033–1037). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Verheij, B. (2003b). Deflog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 319–346.
Verheij, B. (2004). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial intelligence and Law, 11, 167–195.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to popular opinion. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Walton, D. M. (2001). Abductive, presumptive, and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21, 141–169.
Walton, D. N. (2004). Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (2008). Witness testimony evidence: Argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., & Gordon, T. F. (2005). Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In P. E. Dunne, & T. Bench-Capon (Ed.), International workshop on argumentation in artificial intelligence and law (pp. 103–111). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Walton, D., & Gordon, T. F. (2014). How to formalize informal logic. In Mohammed, D., & Lewiński, M. (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013(pp. 1–13). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2002). Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In Workshop on computational models of natural argument, 15th European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 11–20).
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wayne, A. (1995). Bayesianism and diverse evidence. Philosophy of Science, 62, 111–121.
Whately, R. (1846). Elements of rhetoric: Comprising an analysis of the laws of moral evidence and of persuasion, with rules for argumentative composition and elocution/c by Richard Whately. B. Fellowes.
Woods, J., Irvine, A., & Walton, D. N. (2004). Argument: Critical thinking, logic and the fallacies, Revised Edition. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Zukerman, I. (2009). Towards probabilistic argumentation. In I. Rahwan & G. R. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 443–462). Dordrecht: Springer.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Frank Zenker for helpful comments on a draft of this manuscript, and Tom Gordon for helpful discussion.The first author was partially supported by the Swedish Research Council’s Hesselgren professorship, and the second author was partially supported by the Centre for Language Studies (Nijmegen).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no potential conflicts of interest associated with this research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hahn, U., Hornikx, J. A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese 193, 1833–1873 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0815-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0815-0