The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.

@article{Hahn2007TheRO,
  title={The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.},
  author={Ulrike Hahn and Mike Oaksford},
  journal={Psychological review},
  year={2007},
  volume={114 3},
  pages={
          704-32
        }
}
Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignorance, while ubiquitous in everyday argumentation, have been subject to little systematic investigation in cognitive psychology. In this article it is argued that these "fallacies" provide a rich taxonomy of argument forms that can be differentially strong, dependent on their content. A Bayesian theory of content-dependent argument strength is presented. Possible psychological mechanisms are… 
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.
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. Argumentative
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.
The uncertain reasoner: Bayes, logic, and rationality
TLDR
In Bayesian Rationality it is argued that probability theory, the calculus of uncertainty, is the right framework in which to understand everyday reasoning, and probability theory explains behavior, even on experimental tasks that have been designed to probe people's logical reasoning abilities.
Reasoning, Argumentation and Rationality
Recent “argumentative approaches” in the study of reasoning are deemed by many to offer the most promising avenue in this field. Such approaches provide good theoretical grounds for the idea that
A Probability Logical Interpretation of Fallacies
This chapter presents a probability logical approach to fallacies. A special interpretation of (subjective) probability is used, which is based on coherence. Coherence provides not only a foundation
Toward an experimental account of argumentation: the case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments
TLDR
This article analyzes two cases of argumentative structures experimentally studied in the context of cognitive psychology, focusing on the slippery slope argument and the ad hominem argument under the frameworks of Bayesian and pragma-dialectics approaches.
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 be
Arguments for an argumentative theory
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This
Reasoning is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation
Theoreticians of deliberative democracy have sometimes found it hard to relate to the seemingly contradictory experimental results produced by psychologists and political scientists. We suggest that
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 225 REFERENCES
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 petitio
A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance.
  • M. Oaksford, U. Hahn
  • Philosophy
    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 of
Human reasoning and argumentation: the probabilistic approach
Book synopsis: This interdisciplinary work is a collection of major essays on reasoning: deductive, inductive, abductive, belief revision, defeasible (non-monotonic), cross cultural, conversational,
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 the
Circular reasoning
  • L. Rips
  • Law, Psychology
    Cogn. Sci.
  • 2002
Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning
TLDR
The case is made that cognition in general, and human everyday reasoning in particular, is best viewed as solving probabilistic, rather than logical, inference problems, and the wider “probabilistic turn” in cognitive science and artificial intelligence is considered.
The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies
TLDR
It is hypothesized that when explicitly presented with different argumentative contexts, students’ performance would reflect their sensitivity to the contextual nature of informal reasoning fallacies, and the two experiments that were conducted support this hypothesis and emphasize the mediating role of perspective taking inStudents’ ability to identify fallacious arguments.
Two Kinds of Reasoning
  • L. Rips
  • Philosophy
    Psychological science
  • 2001
TLDR
In some conditions, participants judged one argument deductively correct more than a second, but judged the second argument inductively strong more often than the first.
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,
Rationality In An Uncertain World: Essays In The Cognitive Science Of Human Understanding
Part I: problems with logicism autonomy, implementation and cognitive architecture - a reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn connectionism, classical cognitive science, and experimental psychology against
...
...