Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem

@article{Harris2012BecauseHD,
  title={Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem},
  author={Adam J. L. Harris and Anne S. Hsu and Jens Koed Madsen},
  journal={Thinking \& Reasoning},
  year={2012},
  volume={18},
  pages={311 - 343}
}
Bayesian probability has recently been proposed as a normative theory of argumentation. In this article, we provide a Bayesian formalisation of the ad Hitlerum argument, as a special case of the ad hominem argument. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that people's evaluation of the argument is sensitive to probabilistic factors deemed relevant on a Bayesian formalisation. Moreover, we provide the first parameter-free quantitative evidence in favour of the Bayesian approach to… Expand
Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.
TLDR
An experiment investigates the predictions of the relevance and epistemic approaches to argumentation for a graded belief change version of van Eemeren et al.'s (2009) experiment, and the results are modeled using a Bayesian congruent prior model. Expand
James is polite and punctual (and useless): A Bayesian formalisation of faint praise
“Damned by faint praise” is the phenomenon whereby weak positive information leads to a negative change in belief. This seemingly conflicts with normative Bayesian predictions, which prescribe thatExpand
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
A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation
In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation.Expand
Rational argument, rational inference
TLDR
Using the catalogue of informal reasoning fallacies established over the centuries within the realms of philosophy, Hahn and Oaksford (2007a) recently demonstrated how Bayesian probability can provide a normative standard by which to evaluate quantitatively the strength of a wide range of everyday arguments. Expand
The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach
TLDR
This work proposes a Bayesian network as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how people evaluate this argument, and demonstrates that such an approach might be beneficial to argumentation research generally. Expand
The Bayesian boom: good thing or bad?
  • U. Hahn
  • Medicine, Psychology
  • Front. Psychol.
  • 2014
TLDR
Closer consideration of actual examples of Bayesian treatments of different cognitive phenomena allows one to defuse critiques showing that they cannot be sustained across the diversity of applications of the Bayesian framework for cognitive modeling. Expand
Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?
Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteriaExpand
Normative theories of argumentation: are some norms better than others?
TLDR
It is concluded that it is both possible and desirable to invoke norms for rational argument, and that a Bayesian approach provides solid normative principles with which to do so. Expand
Coherence and argument structure: An empirical comparison between plausible reasoning and the Bayesian approach to argumentation
TLDR
Results suggest that the Bayesian approach to argumentation provides a more precise picture of how people evaluate the strength of appeals to witness testimony when considering coherence and argument structure as relevant factors. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 85 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
Why Are We Convinced by the Ad Hominem Argument?: Bayesian Source Reliability and Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules
TLDR
The experiment reported in this chapter investigates how convincing people find the ad hominem argument from the emerging Bayesian epistemic perspective on argumentation, in which people are argued to be sensitive to the reliability of the source of an argument. Expand
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
A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance.
  • M. Oaksford, U. Hahn
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale
  • 2004
In this paper, we re-examine a classic informal reasoning fallacy, the so-called argumentam ad ignorantiam. We argue that the structure of some versions of this argument parallels examples ofExpand
Conservatism in Belief Revision and Participant Skepticism
Comparing the responses of participants in reasoning experiments to the normative standard of Bayes’ Theorem has been a popular empirical approach for almost half a century. One longstandingExpand
A normative theory of argument strength
In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We also provide some evidence based on our recent work on the fallacies as to why Bayesian probabilityExpand
"Damned by faint praise": A Bayesian account
“Damned by Faint Praise” is the phenomenon whereby weak positive information leads to a negative change in belief. However, in a Bayesian model of belief revision positive information can seeminglyExpand
The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation
The notion of “the burden of proof” plays an important role in real-world argumentation contexts, in particular in law. It has also been given a central role in normative accounts of argumentation,Expand
Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?
Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteriaExpand
An Objective Justification of Bayesianism II: The Consequences of Minimizing Inaccuracy*
In this article and its prequel, we derive Bayesianism from the following norm: Accuracy—an agent ought to minimize the inaccuracy of her partial beliefs. In the prequel, we make the normExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...