منابع مشابه
Emotions in Argumentation: an Empirical Evaluation
Argumentation is often seen as a mechanism to support different forms of reasoning such that decision-making and persuasion, but all these approaches assume a purely rational behavior of the involved actors. However, humans are proved to behave differently, mixing rational and emotional attitudes to guide their actions, and it has been claimed that there exists a strong connection between the a...
متن کاملMetaphors and Emotions as Framing Strategies in Argumentation
The paper focuses on the role of both emotional and metaphorical processes in reasoning. The aim of the paper is to present an extension of the argumentative theory of reasoning proposed by Mercier and Sperber (2011). In order to advance an integrated model of the roles of metaphors and emotions in argumentation, the paper argues that it is possible to ascribe not only a negative role to emotio...
متن کاملEmotions and personality traits in argumentation: An empirical evaluation1
Argumentation is a mechanism to support different forms of reasoning such as decision making and persuasion and always cast under the light of critical thinking. In the latest years, several computational approaches to argumentation have been proposed to detect conflicting information, take the best decision with respect to the available knowledge, and update our own beliefs when new informatio...
متن کاملGroup emotions: the social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation
The learning sciences of today recognize the tri-dimensional nature of learning as involving cognitive, social and emotional phenomena. However, many computer-supported argumentation systems still fail in addressing the socioemotional aspects of group reasoning, perhaps due to a lack of an integrated theoretical vision of how these three dimensions interrelate to each other. This paper presents...
متن کاملRelating Concrete Argumentation Formalisms and Abstract Argumentation
There are a wide variety of formalisms for defeasible reasoning that can be seen as implementing concrete argumentation on defeasible rules. However there has been little work on the relationship between such languages and Dung’s abstract argumentation. In this paper we identify two small fragments on which many concrete defeasible formalisms agree. The two fragments are closely related, as we ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Informal Logic
سال: 1995
ISSN: 0824-2577,0824-2577
DOI: 10.22329/il.v17i2.2407