Abstract

As argumentation theory has moved away from classical logic as a standard, sources have played an increasingly important role in the psychology of argumentation. Considering the connections between arguments and their sources is important for both descriptive and normative projects. This chapter draws together different strands of research in the psychology of argumentation and their differing views on source characteristics: namely, procedural rules, pragmatics, argumentation schemes and Bayesian Argumentation. We argue for a reconciliation of these different approaches around a probabilistic notion of relevance.