Argument schemes—an epistemological approach (original) (raw)

On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments

Argumentation, 2004

We develop conceptions of arguments and of argument types that will, by serving as the basis for developing a natural classification of arguments, benefit work in artificial intelligence. Focusing only on arguments construed as the semantic entities that are the outcome of processes of reasoning, we outline and clarify our view that an argument is a proposition that represents a fact as both conveying some other fact and as doing so wholly. Further, we outline our view that, with respect to arguments that are propositions, (roughly) two arguments are of the same type if and only if they represent the same relation of conveyance and do so in the same way. We then argue for our conceptions of arguments and argument types, and compare them to alternative positions. We also illustrate the need for, and some of the strengths of, our approach to classifying arguments through an examination of aspects of two prominent and recent attempts to classify arguments using argumentation schemes, namely those of M. Kienpointner and D. Walton. Finally, we clarify how our conception of arguments and of argument types can assist in developing an exhaustive classification of arguments.

Argumentation schemes and topical relations.

Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2014). Argumentation schemes and topical relations. In G. Gobber, and A. Rocci (eds.), Language, reason and education (pp. 185-216). Bern: Peter Lang.

One of the cornerstones of argumentation theory is the analysis of the structure of natural arguments. Dialectical and rhetorical arguments cannot be investigated by simply using the logical categories drawn from the formal meaning of quantifiers and connectors. While formal rules merely transfer the truth value of the propositions expressed by the premises to the one constituting the conclusion, natural arguments are characterized by the notion of acceptability. What argumentative reasoning conveys from the premises to the conclusion is not truth, but the hearer’s attitude towards the state of affairs or judgment expressed by a dialogue move. Introducing the individual in the analysis of reasoning makes the investigation of a relationship between formal structures inadequate, as it cannot capture the very purpose of argumentation, modifying attitudes and commitments. The subject matter of an argumentative analysis becomes the sequence of dialogical moves that the speaker performs in order to modify the other’s perception of reality. The ancient model of topics, which was introduced by Aristotle in his Topics and developed in the Latin and Medieval tradition, provided criteria based on the ontological structure of language for exploring the semantic-ontological boundaries of inference. This intuition, interpreted in coherence with the categories of modern linguistic and argumentative theories, was made by Rigotti the cornerstone of a new and revolutionary approach to argumentation. By setting out the connection between semantics and reasoning, the Argumentum Model of Topics provides the rules of reasonableness of an inference, and essentially links ontology, semantics, pragmatics and argumentation. The purpose of this paper is to show how this innovative proposal can be used for developing the theoretical model of argumentation schemes, which represent the structure of the prototypical patterns of natural arguments.

Argumentation Schemes. History, Classifications, and Computational Applications

Argumentation schemes can be described as abstract structures representing the most generic types of argument, constituting the building blocks of the ones used in everyday reasoning. This paper investigates the structure, classification, and uses of such schemes. Three goals are pursued: 1) to describe the schemes, showing how they evolved and how they have been classified in the traditional and the modern theories; 2) to propose a method for classifying them based on ancient and modern developments; and 3) to outline and show how schemes can be used to describe and analyze or produce real arguments. To this purpose, we will build on the traditional distinctions for building a dichotomic classification of schemes, and we will advance a modular approach to argument analysis, in which different argumentation schemes are combined together in order to represent each step of reasoning on which a complex argument relies. Finally, we will show how schemes are applied to formal systems, focusing on their applications to Artificial Intelligence, AI & Law, argument mining, and formal ontologies.

A means-end classification of argumentation schemes

One of the crucial problems of argumentation schemes as illustrated in (Walton, Reed & Macagno 2008) is their practical use for the purpose of analyzing texts and producing arguments. The high number and the lack of a classification criterion make this instrument extremely difficult to apply practically. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure of argumentation schemes and outline a possible criterion of classification based on alternative and mutually-exclusive possibilities. Such a criterion is based not on what an argument is, but how it can be understood and interpreted. The schemes are grouped according to an end-means principle, which is strictly bound to the ontological structure of the conclusion and the premises. On this view, a scheme can be selected according to the intended or reconstructed purpose of an argument and the possible strategies that can be used to achieve it.

A classification system for argumentation schemes

Argument & Computation, 2016

This paper explains the importance of classifying argumentation schemes, and outlines how schemes are being used in current research in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics on argument mining. It provides a survey of the literature on scheme classification. What are so far generally taken to represent a set of the most widely useful defeasible argumentation schemes are surveyed and explained systematically, including some that are difficult to classify. A new classification system covering these centrally important schemes is built.

Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions

D. M. Godden and D. Walton, Informal Logic, 27, 2007, 267-292.

We consider the classification of argumentation schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions. We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms.

Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map

Informal Logic, 2005

An overvic\\ of tht: epistemological approach to argumentation. explaining \\hat it is. justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach. systematizing the main directions and theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation. Resume: On decrit l'approche epistemologique de I' argumentation. la compare aux autres approches. systematise scs directions principales et ses theories selon ses criteres d 'un bon argument, presente les contributions des theoriciens de cette approche sur les sujets majeurs de la theorie d•argumentation. Entin. on resume les articles de ce numero special d' Informal Logic ainsi que ceux du prochain.

A Theory of Philosophical Arguments

2020

In this article, a new, idealizing-hermeneutic methodological approach to developing a theory of philosophical arguments is presented and carried out. The basis for this is a theory of ideal philosophical theory types developed from the analysis of historical examples. According to this theory, the following ideal types of theory exist in philosophy: 1. descriptive-nomological, 2. idealizing-hermeneutic, 3. technical-constructive, 4. ontic-practical. These types of theories are characterized in particular by what their basic types of theses are. The main task of this article is then to determine the types of arguments that are suitable for justifying these types of theses. Surprisingly, practical arguments play a key role here.