Order:
  1.  36
    Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’T IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2017 - Argumentation 32 (4):569-587.
    Whether abduction is treated as an argument or as an inference, the mainstream view presupposes a tight connection between abduction and inference to the best explanation. This paper critically evaluates this link and supports a narrower view on abduction. Our main thesis is that merely the hypothesis-generative aspect, but not the evaluative aspect, is properly abductive in the sense introduced by C. S. Peirce. We show why equating abduction with IBE unnecessarily complicates argument evaluation by levelling the status of abduction (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  2.  8
    Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
    According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise; if premise, then conclusion; (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  4
    A Dialectical View on Conduction: Reasons, Warrants, and Normal Suasory Inclinations.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (1):32-69.
    When Carl Wellman introduced the reasoning-type conduction, he endorsed a dialectical view on natural language argumentation. Contemporary scholarship, by contrast, treats conductive argument predominantly on a product view. Not only did Wellman’s reasons for a dialectical view thus fall into disregard; a product-treatment of conduction also flouts the standard semantics of ‘argument’. Attempting to resolve these difficulties, our paper traces Wellman’s preference for a dialectical view to the role of defeasible warrants. These act as stand-ins for value hierarchies that arguers (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  3
    Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions.Frank Zenker & Shiyang Yu - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-27.
    Authority arguments generate support for claims by appealing to an agent’s authority status, rather than to reasons independent of it. With few exceptions, the current literature on argument schemes acknowledges two basic authority types. The _epistemic_ type grounds in knowledge, the_ deontic_ type grounds in power. We review how historically earlier scholarship acknowledged an_ attractiveness-based_ and a _majority-based_ authority type as equally basic type. Crossing these with basic speech act types thus yields authority argument sub-schemes. Focusing on the_ epistemic-assertive_ sub-scheme (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  3
    Identifying Linked and Convergent Argument Structures.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2022 - Informal Logic 42 (3):363-387.
    To analyze the argument structure, the linked vs convergent distinction is crucial. In applying this distinction, argumentation scholars test for variations of argument strength under premise revision. A relevance-based test assesses whether an argument’s premises are individually relevant to its conclusion, while a support-based test assesses whether premises support the conclusion independently. Both criteria presuppose that evaluating an argument’s strength is methodologically prior to identifying its structure. Yet, if ‘argument structure’ is a concept of analysis, then a structural analysis would (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  3
    How to justify a backing’s eligibility for a warrant: the justification of a legal interpretation in a hard case.Shiyang Yu & Xi Chen - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-30.
    The Toulmin model has been proved useful in law and argumentation theory. This model describes the basic process in justifying a claim, which comprises six elements, i.e., claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. Specifically, in justifying a claim, one must put forward ‘data’ and a ‘warrant’, whereas the latter is authorized by ‘backing’. The force of the ‘claim’ being justified is represented by the ‘qualifier’, and the condition under which the claim cannot be justified is represented as the ‘rebuttal’. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark