Coherence and argument structure: An empirical comparison between plausible reasoning and the Bayesian approach to argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Plausible reasoning has been proposed as an alternative to deductive and inductive norms of argument evaluation in informal logic. In this paper, we present the first systematic empirical contrast between the Bayesian account of argumentation and a plausible reasoning model. Results suggest that the Bayesian approach to argumentation provides a more precise picture of how people evaluate the strength of appeals to witness testimony when considering coherence and argument structure as relevant factors.
منابع مشابه
Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning
Short Abstract: Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important in ancient Greek skeptical philosophy using an AI model called the Carneades Argumentation System. In this paper, it is shown that there is a significant connection between the ancient recognition of plausible reasoning by the Greek skeptics and Sophists and the re...
متن کاملLogical Argumentation, Abduction and Bayesian Decision Theory: A Bayesian Approach to Logical Arguments and its Application to Legal Evidential Reasoning
There are good normative arguments for using Bayesian decision theory for deciding what to do. However, there are also good arguments for using logic, where we want have a formal semantics for a language and use the structure of logical argumentation with logical variables to represent multiple individuals (things). This paper shows how decision theory and logical argumentation can be combined ...
متن کاملThe Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called 'sunk costs' in economics and 'argument from waste' in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly emp...
متن کاملThe rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.
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 theo...
متن کاملRational argument, rational inference
Reasoning researchers within cognitive psychology have spent decades examining the extent to which human inference measures up to normative standards. Work here has been dominated by logic, but logic has little to say about most everyday, informal arguments. Empirical work on argumentation within psychology and education has studied the development and improvement of argumentation skills, but h...
متن کامل