A Critical Discussion Game for Prohibiting Fallacies

• Authors: Visser Jacky , Budzynska Katarzyna , Reed Chris
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

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.

Keywords

EN

Argument Web; argumentation; critical discussion; Dialogue Game Description Language; fallacies; formal dialectics; pragma-dialectics

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)
• Journal: Logic and Logical Philosophy
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 27
• Issue: 4 Special Issue on Logic, Cognition, Argumentation. Guest Editors: Mariusz Urbański, Michiel van Lambalgen and Marcin Koszowy
• Pages: 491-515

Dates

published

2018-12-15

Contributors

author

Visser Jacky

• Centre for Argument Technology, University of Dundee, DD1 4HN, United Kingdom

author

Budzynska Katarzyna

• Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy Swiat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland
• Centre for Argument Technology, University of Dundee, DD1 4HN, United Kingdom

author

Reed Chris

• Centre for Argument Technology, University of Dundee, DD1 4HN, United Kingdom
• Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy Swiat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland

References

• Baroni, P., T.F. Gordon, T. Scheffler, and M. Stede, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2016, IOS Press, 2016.
• Barth, E.M., Evaluaties. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van gewoon lector in de logica met inbegrip van haar geschiedenis en de wijsbegeerte van de logica in haar relatie tot de wijsbegeerte in het algemeen aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht op vrijdag 2 juni 1972 (Evaluations. Address given at the assumption of duties as regular lecturer of logic including its history and philosophy of logic in relation to philosophy in general at the University of Utrecht on Friday, 2 June 1972), Assen: van Gorcum, 1972.
• Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe, From Axiom to Dialogue. A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, de Gruyter, 1982.
• Bex, F., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed, “Generalising argument dialogue with the dialogue game execution platform”, page 141–152 in In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), IOS Press, 2014.
• Bex, F., J. Lawrence, M. Snaith, and C.A. Reed, “Implementing the argument web”, Communications of the ACM 56, 10 (2013): 66–73. DOI: 10.1145/2500891
• Biro, J., and H. Siegel, “In defence of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation”, Informal Logic 26, 1 (2006): 91–102.
• Budzynska, K., and C. Reed, “Whence inference”, University of Dundee, technical report, 2011.
• Chesñevar, C., J. Mcginnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott, “Towards an argument interchange format”, Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 4 (2007): 293–316. DOI: 10.1017/S0269888906001044
• Dung, P.M., “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games”, Artificial Intelligence 77, 2 (1995): 321–357. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
• Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton, “The carneades model of argument and burden of proof”, Artificial Intelligence 171, 10–15 (2007): 875–896. DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010
• Grice, H.P., “Logic and conversation”, pages 41–58 in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, “Speech acts”, Academic, 1975.
• Hamblin, C.L., Fallacies, Methuen, 1970.
• Hansen, H., “Fallacies”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2017 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/fallacies/
• Hintikka, J., “The logic of information-seeking dialogues. A model”, pages 342–377 in W. Becker and W.K. Essler (eds.), Konzepte der Dialektik (Concepts of dialectic), Vittorio Klostermann., 1981.
• Hintikka, J., “The fallacy of fallacies”, Argumentation 1, 3 (1987): 211–238. DOI: 10.1007/BF00136775
• Janier, M., M. Snaith, K. Budzynska, J. Lawrence, and C. Reed. “A system for dispute mediation: The mediation dialogue game”, pages 351–358 in T. Scheffler, M. Stede, P. Baroni, and T.F. Gordon (eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2016, 2016.
• Janier, M., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed, “Ova+: An argument analysis interface”, pages 463–464 in S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed, and F. Cerutti (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), Pitlochry, IOS Press, 2014.
• Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair, Logical Self-Defence, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1977.
• Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair, “Contexts of informal reasoning: Commentary”, pages 131–150 in D.N. Perkins J.F. Voss, and J.W. Segal (eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
• Koszowy, M., and D. Walton, “Profiles of dialogue for repairing faults in arguments from expert opinion”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 26, 1 (2017): 79–113. DOI: 10.12775/LLP.2016.014
• Krabbe, E.C.W., “Studies in dialogical logic”, Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, 1982.
• Krabbe, E.C.W., “So what? profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues”, Argumentation 6 (1992): 271–283.
• Krabbe, E.C.W., “The formalization of Critical Discussion”, Argumentation 31, 1 (2017): 101–119. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9401-y
• Lawrence, J., M. Snaith, F. Bex, and C. Reed, “Demonstration papers on the aifdb, argublogging, arvina, and toast”, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012): 511–516.
• Levinson, S.C., Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 1983.
• Lorenzen, P., and K. Lorenz, Dialogische Logik (Dialogical Logic), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978.
• Mackenzie, J.D., “Question-begging in non-cumulative systems”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 1 (1979): 117–133. DOI: 10.1007/BF00258422
• Mackenzie, J.D., “What hamblins book fallacies was about”, Informal Logic 31, 4 (2011): 262–278.
• Pease, A., J. Lawrence, K. Budzynska, J. Corneli, and C. Reed, “Lakatosstyle collaborative mathematics through dialectical, structured and abstract argumentation”, Artificial Intelligence 246 (2017): 181–219. DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2017.02.006
• Rahwan, I., and G.R. Simari, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2009.
• Rescher, N., Dialectics. A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of New York Press, 1977.
• Searle, J.R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, 1969.
• Secades, A., “A computational model of pragma-dialectics as a tool for its analysis and evaluation”, Informal Logic 35, 3 (2015): 342–377. DOI: 10.22329/il.v35i3.4121
• Snaith, M., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed, “Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation”, pages 2–13 in Proceedings of Online Deliberation, Fourth International Conference, OD2010, 2010.
• Snaith, M., and C. Reed, “Toast: Online aspic+ implementation”, pages 509–510 in S. Szeider, B. Verheij, and S. Woltran (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), IOS Press, 2012.
• Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Analyzing Complex Argumentation, SicSat, 1992.
• Starmans, R.J.C.M., “Logic, argument, and commonsense”, University of Tilburg, doctoral dissertation, 1996.
• van Eemeren, F.H., “Taalbeheersing, argumentatie en rationaliteit: Een nadere bepaling van het begrip kritische discussiant” (Speech communication, argumentation and rationality: A further specification of the notion ‘critical discussant’), pages 56–68 in Taalbeheersing 1978. Verslagen van een symposium gehouden op 13 april 1978 aan de Katholieke Hogeschool te Tilburg, VIOT, TH Twente, 1978.
• van Eemeren, F.H., “The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics”, Text. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 10, 1/2 (1990): 37–44. DOI: 10.1515/text.1.1990.10.1-2.37
• van Eemeren, F.H., Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, John Benjamins, 2010. DOI: 10.1075/aic.2
• van Eemeren, F.H., “The pragma-dialectical theory under discussion”, Argumentation 26, 4 (2012): 439–457. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-012-9274-7
• van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans, “Argumentation and artificial intelligence”, pages 615–675 in Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Springer, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_11
• van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Springer, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
• van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans, “The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation”, pages 517–613 in Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Springer, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_10
• van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, and B. Meuffels, Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules, Springer, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9
• van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion, Foris, 1984. DOI: 10.1515/9783110846089
• van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
• van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511616389
• van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.’ts F. Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A pragma-dialectical study, Springer, 2007. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5
• van Gelder, T., “The rationale for rationale”, Law, Probability and Risk 6 (2007): 23–42.
• Visser, J., “Speech acts in a dialogue game formalisation of critical discussion”, Argumentation 31, 2 (2017): 245–266. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9404-8
• Visser, J.C., “A dialogue game for critical discussion: Groundwork in the formalisation and computerisation of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation”, University of Amsterdam, doctoral dissertation, 2016.
• Visser, J.C., “Towards computer support for pragma-dialectical argumentation analysis”, pages 1–18 in L. Benacquista and P. Bondy (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity and Bias. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), OSSA, 2016.
• Walton, D., Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies, University Press of America, 1984.
• Walton, D.N., Question-Reply Argumentation, Greenwood Press, 1989.
• Walton, D.N., A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Studies in rhetoric and communication, University of Alabama Press, 1995.
• Wells, S., and C.A. Reed, “A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue”, Journal of Applied Logic 10, 4 (2012): 309–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.jal.2012.09.001
• Woods, J., and D. Walton, “Arresting circles in formal dialogues”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 7, 1 (1978): 73–90. DOI: 10.1007/BF00245921
• Woods, J.H., The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent Based Reasoning, Applied Logic Series, Springer Netherlands, 2013. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3
• Woods, J.H., and D. Walton, Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972–1982, Foris de Gruyter, 1989.