A Cognitive Model of Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
In order to argue effectively one must have a grasp of both the normative strength of the inferences that come into play and the effect that the proposed inferences will have on the audience. In this paper we describe a program, NAG (Nice Argument Generator), that attempts to generate arguments that are both persuasive and correct. To do so NAG incorporates two models: a normative model, for judging the normative correctness of an argument, and a user model, for judging the persuasive effect of the same argument upon the user. The user model incorporates some of the common errors humans make when reasoning. In order to limit the scope of its reasoning during argument evaluation and generation NAG explicitly simulates attentional processes in both the user and the normative models.
منابع مشابه
Cognitive Map Model in Argumentation Theory
A cognitive map is a graphical representation of mental beliefs of an underlined entity by an expert following a set of discursive representations from his own cognitive representation on a particular subject to help him to think about the presented reality. In This paper, first we briefly present the argumentation theory and the cognitive map model with its applications for decision problems. ...
متن کاملA neural cognitive model of argumentation with application to legal inference and decision making
Formal models of argumentation have been investigated in several areas, from multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence (AI) to decision making, philosophy and law. In artificial intelligence, logic-based models have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. More recently, the standard logicbased models have been shown equivalent to standard connectionist models....
متن کاملArgumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory: Preliminary Report
This paper presents a coherentist approach to argumentation that extends previous proposals on cognitive coherence based agent communication pragmatics (inspired from social psychology) and propose (1) an alternative view on argumentation that is (2) part of a more general model of communication. In this approach, the cognitive aspects associated to both the production, the evaluation and the i...
متن کاملArgumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory
This paper presents a coherentist approach to argumentation that extends previous proposals on cognitive coherence based agent communication pragmatics (inspired from social psychology) and propose (1) an alternative view on argumentation that is (2) part of a more general model of communication. In this approach, the cognitive aspects associated to both the production, the evaluation and the i...
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 کاملA Collaborative Model of Argumentation in Dyadic Problem-Solving Interactions
Within a cognitive approach to argumentation, our research deals with the argumentative processes of knowledge co-construction in dialogue (Baker, 1999). From this point of view we have been designing experimental situations favouring argumentation in dyadic problem-solving (Quignard & Baker, 1998; Baker, Quignard, Lund & van Amelsvoort, this volume) over several years, in order to understand t...
متن کامل