Argumentation 25 (2):171-184 (2011)

Abstract
A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of dialogical interaction, in which human or artificial agents aim to resolve a conflict of opinion by verbal means. Rules for conducting such dialogues and criteria for their quality are part of dialogue theory. Usually, formal accounts of argumentation dialogues in logic and artificial intelligence presuppose an argument-based logic. That is, the ways in which dialogue participants support and attack claims are modelled as the construction of explicit arguments and counterarguments (in the inferential sense). However, in this paper formal models of argumentation dialogues are discussed that do not presuppose arguments as inferential structures. The motivation for such models is that there are forms of inference that are not most naturally cast in the form of arguments (such as abduction, statistical reasoning and coherence-based reasoning) but that can still be the subject of argumentative dialogue. Some recent work in artificial intelligence is discussed which embeds non-argumentative inference in an argumentative dialogue system, and some general observations are drawn from this discussion.
Keywords Logic  Dialogue  Arguments  Inferential structures  Abduction  Coherence
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9208-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,784
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Thagard’s Coherentism. [REVIEW]Majid Amini - 2000 - Philosophical Books 43 (2):136-140.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Vale Press.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
The Structure of Argumentation in Health Product Messages.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (3):179-198.
Argument Quality and Cultural Difference.Siegel Harvey - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (2):183-201.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-04-24

Total views
58 ( #164,610 of 2,350,111 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #332,572 of 2,350,111 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes