Argument mapping software abounds, 1 and one of the reasons is that using the software has been shown to teach/promote/improve critical thinking skills. These positive results are very encouraging, but they also raise the question of whether the computer tutorial environment is producing these results, or whether learning argument mapping, even with just paper and pencil, is sufficient. Based o...

The paper describes the proper interpretation of the fiducial argument, as given by Fisher in (only) his first papers on the subject. It argues that far from being a quaint, little, isolated idea, this was the first attempt to build a bridge between aleatory probabilities (the only ones used by Neyman) and epistemic probabilities (the only ones used by Bayesians), by implicitly introducing, as ...

The Verb Argument Browser is a linguistically relevant corpus query tool, which can be used for investigating argument structure of verbs. The original tool was developed for Hungarian corpora but the methodology is claimed to be language independent because of the dependecy grammar based representation. This paper examines this language independency applying the methodology to a language with ...

Strategy annotations provide a simple mechanism for introducing some laziness in the evaluation of expressions. As an eager programming language, Maude can take advantage of them and, in fact, they are part of the language. Maude strategy annotations are lists of non-negative integers associated to function symbols which specify the ordering in which the arguments are (eventually) evaluated in ...

religious experience argument is one of the most significant arguments in proving the existence of god in the west. swinburne – the theistic philosopher – has presented a particular exposition of this argument based on the specific principles he calls “credibility principle” and “witness principle”, which have attracted the attention of the philosophers of religion. it is attempted in this rese...

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 st...

In computational models of argumentation, argument justification has attracted more attention than statement justification, and significant sensitivity losses are identifiable when dealing with the justification of statements by otherwise appealing formalisms. This paper reappraises statement justification as a formalism-independent component in argument-based reasoning. We introduce a novel ge...

This article presents an alternative explanation for the Anaphor-Agreement effect, the generalisation that anaphors do not occur in syntactic position construed with agreement (cf. Rizzi 1990). I propose that this effect finds its explanation in the theory of argument marking. Arguments must be marked by either case or agreement for reasons of LF visibility (cf. Chomsky 1986). However, when an ...