Similarity, causality and argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Similarity is a notion that is widely used both in cognitive science and in argumentation theory. These research programs have, however, developed in large part separately and in consequence rely on disparate notions of similarity. Only recently there has been a proposal for specifying how similarity actually plays a role in judging slippery slope arguments. We present here further theoretical discussion and empirical evidence in order to show how similarity can play a role in slippery slope arguments and in argumentation in general. In the experiment presented here, we manipulated the availability of causal information, and showed that people are sensitive to it when judging arguments’ strength. We conclude that similarity between causal properties of the elements presented in arguments is crucial for arguments’ strength assessments.
منابع مشابه
On the benefits of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue
We present a model of argumentation-based deliberative dialogue for decision making in a team of agents. The model captures conflicts among agents’ plans due to scheduling and causality constraints, and conflicts between actions, goals and norms. We evaluate this model in complex collaborative planning problems to assess its ability to resolve such conflicts. We show that a model grounded on ap...
متن کاملTowards segment-based recognition of argumentation structure in short texts
Despite recent advances in discourse parsing and causality detection, the automatic recognition of argumentation structure of authentic texts is still a very challenging task. To approach this problem, we collected a small corpus of German microtexts in a text generation experiment, resulting in texts that are authentic but of controlled linguistic and rhetoric complexity. We show that trained ...
متن کاملPropositional Argumentation and Causal Reasoning
The paper introduces a number of propositional argumentation systems obtained by gradually extending the underlying language and associated monotonic logics. An assumption-based argumentation framework [Bondarenko et al., 1997] will constitute a special case of this construction. In addition, a stronger argumentation system in a full classical language will be shown to be equivalent to a system...
متن کاملImplementing Argumentation Schemes as Logic Programs
The dominant approach to argumentation mining has been to treat it as a text classification problem. However some applications to scientific text, such as accurately summarizing argumentation in research articles, require a deeper understanding of the text. This paper provides a novel approach in which argumentation schemes are represented as logic program rules for use in argumentation mining....
متن کاملContents Editorial 2 Interview with . . . Leon
Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation is a widely used formalism in the eld of arti cial intelligence. It is used to model various types of reasoning, by representing con icting or defeasible information using an argumentation framework, i.e., a set of arguments and an attack relation. Di erent so called semantics have been proposed in the literature to determine, given an argumentation frame...
متن کامل