Identifying and Analyzing Arguments in a Text Argumentation in (Con)Text Symposium, Jan. 4, 2007, Bergen.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Visualization Tools, Argumentation Schemes and Expert Opinion Evidence in Law Douglas Walton University of Winnipeg, Canada Thomas F. Gordon Fraunhofer.
Advertisements

Text Table of Contents #5 and #8: Evaluating the Argument.
CHAPTER 13 Inference Techniques. Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence n Knowledge must be processed (reasoned with) n Computer program accesses knowledge.
On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse,
Copyright © 2008, Terry Hudson Session 3. Copyright © 2008, Terry Hudson Chapter 2 – Argument Coordination Relationship between arguer and recipient as.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 5: Argumentation with structured arguments (1) argument structure Henry Prakken Chongqing June 2, 2010.
Explanations and Arguments Based on Practical Reasoning ExaCt 2009 July 12 Pasadena Douglas Walton (CRRAR) University of Windsor.
BIRDS FLY. is a bird Birds fly Tweety is a bird Tweety flies DEFEASIBLE NON-MONOTONIC PRESUMPTIVE?
That is a bear track A bear has passed this way. What is the nature of the transition from the first of these thoughts to the second? Is it DeductionInductionAbduction.
Elements and Methods of Argumentation Theory University of Padua Lecture Padua, Italy, Dec.1, Douglas Walton Assumption University Chair in Argumentation.
Debate. Inductive Reasoning When you start with a probable truth, and seek evidence to support it. Most scientific theories are inductive. Evidence is.
Conductive Arguments in Ethical Deliberation Douglas Walton: University of Windsor Assumption Chair in Argumentation Studies Distinguished Research Fellow.
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Henry Prakken Lissabon, Portugal December 11, 2009.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 6 Preparing to Evaluate Arguments.
FINDING THE LOGIC OF ARGUMENTATION Douglas Walton CRRAR Coimbra, March 24, 2011.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate An Examination of Values. OBJECTIVES: The student will 1. Demonstrate understanding of the concepts that underlie Lincoln-Douglas.
BASIC CONCEPTS OF ARGUMENTS
Argumentation Logics Lecture 5: Argumentation with structured arguments (1) argument structure Henry Prakken Chongqing June 2, 2010.
Argumentation Theory and its Applications to the Learning Sciences Douglas Walton CRRAR Parallel session: SESSION L (Symposia ) Presenting on: 30 Aug 2013.
Scientific Method Lab.
Basic Argumentation.
Section 2: Science as a Process
Can Big Questions Be Begged?. Fallacies are mistakes in inference, BUT Begging the question is not a mistake in inference. Is it a fallacy at all? Robinson.
Chapter 4: Lecture Notes
MODELING CRITICAL QUESTIONS AS ADDITIONAL PREMISES Douglas Walton CRRAR OSSA, May 19, 2011.
Chapter 1: Lecture Notes What Is an Argument? (and What is Not?)
Argument Mapping and Teaching Critical Thinking APA Chicago April 17/08 Douglas Walton CRRAR Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric:
1 Science as a Process Chapter 1 Section 2. 2 Objectives  Explain how science is different from other forms of human endeavor.  Identify the steps that.
Argument Visualization Tools for Corroborative Evidence 2 nd International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science (ICELFS 2009) Beijing, China,
The Method Argumentative or Persuasive writings act as an exchange between two or more parties (the Writer and Reader) where one side tries to convince.
Chapter 10 Evaluating Premises: Self-Evidence, Consistency, Indirect Proof Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian.
Responding Critically to Texts
The Current Agenda of Argumentation Theory Douglas Walton: University of Windsor Assumption Chair in Argumentation Studies Distinguished Research Fellow.
BUS 290: Critical Thinking for Managers
Reason: as a Way of Knowing Richard van de Lagemaat, Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma (Cambridge: CUP, 2005)
Logic. What is logic? Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike) is the use and study of valid reasoning. The study of logic features most prominently.
© 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The Art of Critical Reading Mather ● McCarthy Part 4 Reading Critically Chapter 12 Evaluating.
READING #4 “DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS” By Robert FitzGibbons from Making educational decisions: an introduction to Philosophy of Education (New York & London:
Critical Thinking. Critical thinkers use reasons to back up their claims. What is a claim? ◦ A claim is a statement that is either true or false. It must.
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
The Scientific Method. Objectives Explain how science is different from other forms of human endeavor. Identify the steps that make up scientific methods.
RECOGNIZING, ANALYZING, AND CONSTRUCTING ARGUMENTS
English Language Services
Fall 2009 Dr. Bobby Franklin.  “... [the] systematic, controlled empirical and critical investigation of natural phenomena guided by theory and hypotheses.
Understanding the Persuasive Techniques in Developing Arguments How a speech can soothe and inspire a grieving population.
Building Blocks of Scientific Research Chapter 5 References:  Business Research (Duane Davis)  Business Research Methods (Cooper/Schindler) Resource.
Abduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin. Contents Definition of abduction An abductive learning method Recommended reading.
I think therefore I am - Rene Descartes. REASON (logic) It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence.
What is an argument? An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." Huh? Three.
© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.
Text Table of Contents #5: Evaluating the Argument.
Old Fallacies, Emotional Fallacies, Groupthink Sign In HW Due Quiz! Review Quiz! Fallacies Review New Emotional Fallacies Fallacies and evaluating arguments.
The Toulmin Method. Why Toulmin…  Based on the work of philosopher Stephen Toulmin.  A way to analyze the effectiveness of an argument.  A way to respond.
Text Table of Contents #4: What are the Reasons?.
Part 4 Reading Critically
Writing a sound proposal
Understanding Fallacy
What is Scientific Literacy?
Debate: Claims.
Logic, Philosophical Tools Quiz Review…20 minutes 10/31
Critical Thinking– Part 1
Inductive and Deductive Logic
Nonfiction vocabulary
On Arguments from Testimony
Making Sense of Arguments
From Informal Fallacies to Formal Logic
Definitions: Evidence-Based Claims- 1.) the ability to take detailed
Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
FCAT Science Standard Arianna Medina.
Avoiding Ungrounded Assumptions
Presentation transcript:

Identifying and Analyzing Arguments in a Text Argumentation in (Con)Text Symposium, Jan. 4, 2007, Bergen

Evaluating Argumentation Take the text of discourse as your evidence. Is the selected speech act an argument, a report or an explanation? If an argument, what are the premises and conclusions? Does it fit an argumentation scheme? Apply the scheme to the argument

Reasoning, Argument and Explanation Reasoning can be used for differing purposes, for example in explanations and arguments. Reasoning is a process of inference in passing from certain propositions known or assumed to be true to other propositions in a sequence (Walton, 1990). Abductive reasoning is inference to the best explanation (Josephsons, 1994). Practical reasoning seeks out a prudential line of conduct for an agent in a particular situation, while theoretical reasoning seeks evidence that counts for or against the truth of a proposition (Walton, 1990).

Basic Scheme for Practical Reasoning I have a goal G. Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. Therefore, I should (practically speaking) bring about A.

What is an Argument? An argument is a social and verbal means of trying to resolve, or at least contend with, a conflict or difference that has arisen between two parties engaged in a dialog (Walton, 2007). According to this definition, an argument necessarily involves a claim that is advanced by one of the parties, typically an opinion that the one party has put forward as true, and that the other party questions.

Asking Questions The speech act of asking a question is different from the speech act of putting forward an argument. Questions don’t make assertions. But questions can be loaded. So asking a question may not be entirely harmless or free from assertive content.

What is an Explanation? The new dialectical theory (Walton, 2004) models an explanation as a dialogue between two agents in which one agent is presumed by a second agent to understand something, and the second agent asks a question meant to enable him to come to understand it as well. The model articulates the view of Scriven (2002, p. 49): “Explanation is literally and logically the process of filling in gaps in understanding, and to do this we must start out with some understanding of something.”

How to Tell the Difference Test to judge whether a given text of discourse contains an argument or an explanation. Take the statement that is the thing to be proved or explained, and ask yourself the following question. Is it taken as an accepted fact, or something that is in doubt? If the former, it’s an explanation. If the latter, it’s an argument. The Goal of Dialogue is Different The purpose of an argument is to get the hearer to come to accept something that is doubtful or unsettled. The purpose of an explanation is to get him to understand something that he already accepts as a fact.

Deductive, Inductive, and the 3 rd Type: Abductive? Wigmore (1931, p. 20) considered arguments of a kind that are commonly used in collecting evidence in law. Last week the witness A had a quarrel with the defendant B, therefore A is probably biased against B. A was found with a bloody knife in B’s house, therefore A is probably the murderer of B. Clue: Backward Reasoning by Explanation?

Abductive Reasoning D is a set of data or supposed facts in a case. Each one of a set of accounts A1, A2,... An is successful in explaining D. Ai is the account that explains D most successfully (best explanation). Therefore Ai is the most plausible hypothesis in the case.

Defeasible Reasoning Birds fly. Tweety is a bird. Therefore Tweety flies. Subject to exceptions (penguin, ostrich). Based on non-absolute generalizations. Nonmonotonic: valid arguments can become invalid by adding premises.

Current List of Schemes Common schemes include such familiar types of argumentation as argument from sign, argument from example, argument from commitment, argument from a verbal classification, argument from position to know, argument from analogy, argument from precedent, argument from correlation to cause, practical reasoning, abductive reasoning, argument from gradualism, and the slippery slope argument. Other schemes that have been studied include argument from waste (also called sunk costs argument), argument from temporal persistence and argument from appearance. In addition to presumptive schemes, it is possible to treat deductive and inductive forms of argument as schemes.

Argument from Expert Opinion

Critical Questions

Instrumental Scheme for Practical Reasoning I have a goal G. Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. Therefore, I should (practically ought to) bring about A.

Scheme for Value-based Practical Reasoning I have a goal G. G is supported by my set of values, V. Bringing about A is necessary (or sufficient) for me to bring about G. Therefore, I should (practically ought to) bring about A.

Araucaria Araucaria is a software tool for analyzing arguments. It aids a user in reconstructing and diagramming an argument using a simple point-and-click interface. The software also supports argumentation schemes, and provides a user-customizable set of schemes with which to analyze arguments. Once arguments have been analyzed they can be saved in a portable format called "AML", the Argument Markup Language, which is based on XML.

The Animal Freedom Example

The Scalpicin Example

Example of a Hamblin Dialogue

Speech Act Moves in a Dialogue

Dialogue Typology Dialogue Persuasion Critical Discussion Information Seeking Interview Advice Solicitation Expert Consultation NegotiationInquiry Scientific Inquiry Public Inquiry DeliberationEristic Quarrel

Examples of Dialectical Shifts A contractor and homeowner are negotiating on the price of a foundation repair, and they shift to the issue of whether it would be a good idea to install and additional inch of concrete wall. During a divorce dispute, the couple are negotiating on who should looks after the children, but the mediator shifts the discussion to a persuasion dialogue on the issue of which party is in the best position to undertake the task of looking after the children. Each side must give reasons, and this shift makes the dialogue less eristic.

Embedding of Persuasion into Negotiation Dialogue

Some References M. Scriven, The Limits of Explication’, Argumentation, 16, 2002, B. Verheij, Dialectical ‘Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 2003, D. Walton, ‘What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?’, Journal of Philosophy, 87, 1990, D. Walton, Abductive Reasoning, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press, D. Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006.