A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

@article{Godden2016APA,
  title={A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency},
  author={David M. Godden and Frank Zenker},
  journal={Synthese},
  year={2016},
  volume={195},
  pages={1715-1740}
}
This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency (RSA). Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: (1) change in the commitment to the reason, (2) the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, (3) one’s prior commitment to the claim, and (4) the… Expand
A Probabilistic View on Erotetic Argumentation Within Language
TLDR
This paper deals with the phenomenon of erotetic argumentation, which is characterized by a speaker using premises to argue in favor of a question rather than a proposition as in standard cases of argumentation and proposes a Bayesian formalisation for these properties. Expand
Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation
TLDR
This work combines a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’, and forwards a meta-level CQ-list that is arguably both complete and applicable. Expand
A Dialectical View on Conduction: Reasons, Warrants, and Normal Suasory Inclinations
When Carl Wellman (1971) introduced the reasoning-type conduction, he endorsed a dialectical view on natural language argumentation. Contemporary scholarship, by contrast, treats conductive argumentExpand
Bayesian Argumentation and the Value of Logical Validity
TLDR
A major generalization of extant Bayesian approaches to argumentation is presented that utilizes a new class of Bayesian learning methods that are better suited to modeling dynamic and conditional inferences than standard Bayesian conditionalization. Expand
Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation
  • U. Hahn
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences
  • 2020
TLDR
This article describes recent developments in providing such measures as argument strength in a way that tracks an objective relationship with truth and not just mere persuasiveness. Expand
Credence for conclusions: a brief for Jeffrey’s rule
TLDR
An approach to argument evaluation is introduced that complements established frameworks for evaluating arguments: deductive soundness, informal logic, argumentation schemes, pragma-dialectics, and Bayesian inference. Expand
A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Synthese, 2020–2029
Abduction [336]. Abductive [11, 124]. ability [143]. Absence [188]. absences [233]. absurdity [154]. Acceptable [18]. accepting [120]. account [81, 169, 129, 13, 196, 168]. across [35]. Action [271,Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 55 REFERENCES
The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.
Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignorance, while ubiquitous in everyday argumentation, have been subject to little systematic investigationExpand
Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions
This paper begins a working- through of Blair's (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to someExpand
Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen
  • R. Pinto
  • Mathematics, Computer Science
  • Argumentation Library
  • 2001
TLDR
This chapter discusses Logic, Dialectic and the Practice of Rational Criticism, as well as Logic, Coherence and Psychology Revisited, as a whole, and its applications to Cognitive Science and the Future of RationalCriticism. Expand
Relevance, Acceptability and Sufficiency Today
The chapter is a reconsideration of the three criteria of a logically good argument—relevance, acceptability and sufficiency—30 years after Johnson and Blair introduced them in Logical Self-DefenseExpand
On the Theoretical Unification and Nature of Fallacies
I argue in a non-reductive sense for a plausible epistemic principle, which can (1) theoretically and instrumentally unify or systematize all fallacies, and (2) provide a justification for using suchExpand
A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies
We examine in detail three classic reasoning fallacies, that is, supposedly ``incorrect'' forms of argument. These are the so-called argumentam ad ignorantiam, the circular argument or petitioExpand
Circular arguments, begging the question and the formalization of argument strength
Recently Oaksford and Hahn (2004) proposed a Bayesian reconstruction of a classic argumentation fallacy - Locke’s ‘argument from ignorance.’ Here this account is extended to what is probably theExpand
On Argument Strength
Everyday life reasoning and argumentation is defeasible and uncertain. I present a probability logic framework to rationally reconstruct everyday life reasoning and argumentation. Coherence in theExpand
Denying Antecedents and Affirming Consequents: The State of the Art
Recent work on conditional reasoning argues that denying the antecedent [DA] and affirming the consequent [AC] are defeasible but cogent patterns of argument, either because they are effective,Expand
The polysemy of ‘fallacy’—or ‘bias’, for that matter
Starting with a brief overview of current usages (Sect. 2), this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of ‘fallacy’, listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly,Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...