Informal Logic 29 (4):337-367 (2009)
AbstractArgumentation 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 should interact to determine argument strength. In this paper, we outline the approach and then demonstrate the importance of source reliability in two empirical studies. These experiments show the multiplicative relationship between the content and the source of the argument predicted by the Bayesian framework
Similar books and articles
A Normative Theory of Argument Strength.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (1):1-24.
Source Reliability and the Conjunction Fallacy.Andreas Jarvstad & Ulrike Hahn - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (4):682-711.
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.
Putting reasoning and judgement in their proper argumentative place.Mike Oaksford - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):84-85.
What’s the matter with epistemic circularity?David James Barnett - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 171 (2):177-205.
Farewell to direct source incompatibilism.Joseph Keim Campbell - 2006 - Acta Analytica 21 (4):36 - 49.
Empirical Evidence for Rationalism?Joel Pust - 2014 - In Darrell Rowbottom & Anthony Booth (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
Reliability connections between conceivability and inconceivability.Peter Murphy - 2006 - Dialectica 60 (2):195-205.
William Rowe's Bayesian Argument from Evil against the Existence of God: An Attempt at Analysis and Assessment (in Polish).Krzysztof Hubaczek - 2007 - Diametros 14:32 - 52.
Understanding blended multi-source arguments as arguments from partial analogies.Marcello Guarini - 2010 - Ratio Juris 23 (1):65-100.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Bayesian argumentation and the value of logical validity.Benjamin Eva & Stephan Hartmann - 2018 - Psychological Review 125 (5):806-821.
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.
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.
A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
Is probabilistic evidence a source of knowledge?Ori Friedman & John Turri - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (5):1062-1080.
References found in this work
Bayes or Bust?: A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory.John Earman - 1992 - Bradford.
Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument.Ralph H. Johnson - 2000 - Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.