1,720,975 research outputs found
Commentary on: Moira Kloster's "The virtue of restraint – rebalancing power in arguments"
No full textCommentary on Douglas Walton, Alice Toniolo and Timothy J. Norman’s paper “Speech acts and burden of proof in computational models of deliberation dialogue”
No full textModeling argumentative activity with Inference Anchoring Theory:The case of impasse
No full textThe goal of this paper is to model the moves mediators and disputants make in mediation activity. What is of interest here is the generic modeling of the moves in the discussion so that the insights of the various theories of argumentation can be brought to bear. For this we turn to the Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT) approach. IAT, in particular, allows showing how sequences of utterances work together to form arguments in a dialogical context
Dialogue Grammar Induction
No full textThis paper presents a foundation for inducing formal dialogue games from analysed transcripts of real, inter-human conversations. We describe the DI-Algorithm (Dialogue Induction Algorithm), that accepts as input transcripts analysed using the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) enriched with Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT), from which it induces a formal, context-free grammar. This grammar describes the dialogue protocol that was followed in order to generate the original transcript. To illustrate the DI-Algorithm’s application, we provide a worked example based on an AIF analysis of a mock conversation.<br/
Trust based on bias : cognitive constraints on source-related fallacies
Full text linkThis paper advances a cognitive account of the rhetorical effectiveness of fallacious arguments and takes the example of source-related fallacies. Drawing on cognitive psychology and evolutionary linguistics, we claim that a fallacy enforces accessibility and epistemic cognitive constraints on argument processing targeted at preventing the addressee from spotting its fallaciousness, by managing to prevent or circumvent critical reactions. We address the evolutionary bases of biases and the way that these are exploited in fallacious argumentation
Commentary on Douglas Walton, Alice Toniolo and Timothy J. Norman’s paper “Speech acts and burden of proof in computational models of deliberation dialogue”
No full textFair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies: The Case of Induced Earthquakes
No full textContemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about fallacies and the ways to react to them. But what if, in a public controversy, it is not a matter of occasional derailments but one party is systematically trivializing the other party’s problems or resorting to pressure in the form of threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? To gain some grasp of this issue, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies are fair, i.e. balanced, transparent, and tolerant. We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end we stress the importance – especially for those who carry little weight – of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies is widespread
Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies: The Case of Induced Earthquakes
No full textContemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about fallacies and the ways to react to them. But what if, in a public controversy, it is not a matter of occasional derailments but one party is systematically trivializing the other party’s problems or resorting to pressure in the form of threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? To gain some grasp of this issue, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies are fair, i.e. balanced, transparent, and tolerant. We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end we stress the importance – especially for those who carry little weight – of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies is widespread
- …
