A Critical Discussion Game for Prohibiting Fallacies
نویسندگان
چکیده
The study of fallacies is at the heart of argumentation studies. In response to Hamblin’s devastating critique of the state of the theory of fallacies in 1970, both formal dialectical and informal approaches to fallacies developed. In the current paper, we focus on an influential informal approach to fallacies, part of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Central to the pragma-dialectical method for analysing and evaluating argumentative discourse is the ideal model of a critical discussion. In this discussion model, a dialectical perspective on argumentation is combined with a pragmatic take on communicative interaction. By formalising and computationally implementing the model of a critical discussion, we take a first step in the development of software to computationally model argumentative dialogue in which fallacies are prohibited along the pragmadialectical norms. We do this by defining the Critical Discussion Game, a formal dialogue game based on the pragma-dialectical discussion model, executable on an online user-interface which is part of a larger infrastructure of argumentation software.
منابع مشابه
Argotario: Computational Argumentation Meets Serious Games
An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to ‘wrong moves’ in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empi...
متن کاملDiscussion Note HAMBLIN ON THE STANDARD TREATMENT OF FALLACIES
Johnson (1990) has accused Charles Hamblin, the author of Fallacies (1970), of critical failures some of which could even amount to allegations that Hamblin himself committed fallacies in his treatment of textbook writers on the fallacies prior to 1970. According to Johnson (p.165), Hamblin's treatment of the Standard Treatment of the fallacies in the textbooks up to that time exhibits "lack of...
متن کاملIdentification of Formal Fallacies in a Natural Dialogue
This paper is a continuation of the work presented at CS&P 2012 where the LND dialogue system was proposed. It brings together and unifies two traditions in studying dialogue as a game: the dialogical logic introduced by Lorenzen and persuasion dialogue games as specified by Prakken. The aim of the system LND is to recognize and verify formal fallacies in dialogues. Now we extend this system wi...
متن کاملTypes of Dialogue , Dialectical Shifts and Fallacies
The critical discussion is clearly a major context of dialogue to use as a normative model in evaluating arguments as fallacious or not.1 However, this paper will study other types of dialogue that cluster around the edges of the critical discussion. It is a thesis of this paper that these peripheral models of dialogue are needed to support evaluations of arguments as fallacious or nonfallaciou...
متن کاملFallacies as Cognitive Virtues
In its recent attention to reasoning that is agent-based and target-driven, logic has re-taken the practical turn and recovered something of its historic mission. In so doing, it has taken on in a quite general way a game-theoretic character, precisely as it was with the theory of syllogistic refutation in the Topics and On Sophistical Refutations, where Aristotle develops winning strategies fo...
متن کامل