Bayesian Argumentation: The practical side of probability

@inproceedings{Zenker2012BayesianAT,
  title={Bayesian Argumentation: The practical side of probability},
  author={Frank Zenker},
  year={2012}
}
Relevant to, and drawing from, a range of disciplines, the chapters in this collection show the diversity, and applicability, of research in Bayesian argumentation. Together, they form a challenge to philosophers versed in both the use and criticism of Bayesian models who have largely overlooked their potential in argumentation. Selected from contributions to a multidisciplinary workshop on the topic held in Sweden in 2010, the authors count linguists and social psychologists among their number… Expand
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
Testimony and argument: a Bayesian perspective
TLDR
This chapter treats the issue of how source and message characteristics should combine to give rise to an overall evaluation of evidential strength from the perspective of the Bayesian approach to argument. Expand
Bayesian argumentation and the pragmatic approach: Comment on Darmstadter
This paper is a comment on the recent criticism of the argumentative theory of reasoning that falsification is not always rational even in a group context because an isolated hypothesis can always beExpand
Layered Meanings and Bayesian Argumentation: The Case of Exclusives
TLDR
It is argued that the sum of meanings conveyed by an utterance cannot be fed into such models indiscriminately and that the at-issue content of an utterances prevails in its argumentative interpretation. Expand
A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency
TLDR
Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual (in)dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align. Expand
Enumerating Preferred Extensions: A Case Study of Human Reasoning
TLDR
The results show that people tend to agree with the outcome of a version of Thimm’s probabilistic semantics in purely qualitative domains as well as in domains in which conclusions express event likelihood. Expand
Truth in Evidence and Truth in Arguments without Logical Omniscience
  • Gregor Betz
  • Sociology
  • The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
  • 2016
Science advances by means of argument and debate. Based on a formal model of complex argumentation, this article assesses the interplay between evidential and inferential drivers in scientificExpand
Cross-Cultural Differences in Informal Argumentation: Norms, Inductive Biases and Evidentiality
Cross-cultural differences in argumentation may be explained by the use of different norms of reasoning. However, some norms derive from, presumably universal, mathematical laws. This inconsistencyExpand
Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning
This paper explicates an account of argumentative rationality by articulating the common, basic idea of its nature, and then identifying a collection of assumptions inherent in it. ArgumentativeExpand
Bayesian Reasoning’s Power to Challenge Religion and Empirically Justify Atheism
  • R. Carrier
  • Philosophy
  • Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry
  • 2021
Bayes’ Theorem is a simple mathematical equation that can model every empirical argument. Accordingly, once understood it can be used to analyze, criticize, or improve any argument in matters ofExpand
...
1
2
3
...

References

SHOWING 1-7 OF 7 REFERENCES
STUDIES IN BAYESIAN CONFIRMATION THEORY
TLDR
It is argued that the set of candidate measures of the degree to which E confirms H can be narrowed drastically by just a few intuitive and simple desiderata, and some novel and compelling reasons to think that the correct measure of degree of evidential support is the (log) likelihood ratio. Expand
Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm.
  • J. Evans
  • Medicine, Psychology
  • Psychological bulletin
  • 2002
TLDR
It is suggested that the methods used for studying reasoning be reviewed, especially the instructional context, which necessarily defines pragmatic influences as biases. Expand
Bayesian Informal Logic and Fallacy
  • K. Korb
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • 2004
TLDR
Bayesian principles provide a framework for understanding ordinary arguments which is well worth developing and are applied informally to more common forms of inference, namely natural language arguments. Expand
An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances
  • T. Bayes
  • Sociology, Philosophy
  • M.D. computing : computers in medical practice
  • 1991
TLDR
The probability of any event is the ratio between the value at which an expectation depending on the happening of the event ought to be computed, and the value of the thing expected upon it’s 2 happening. Expand
Logical fallacies as informational shortcuts
The paper argues that the two best known formal logical fallacies, namely denying the antecedent (DA) and affirming the consequent (AC) are not just basic and simple errors, which prove humanExpand
Bayesian confirmation theory. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison
  • http://fitelson.org/thesis.pdf (accessed
  • 2012
An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chance . By the late Rev . Mr . Bayes , communicated by Mr . Price , in a letter to John Canton , M . A . and F . R . S
  • . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
  • 1763