On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of the paper is that from an argumentation point of view, it is better to critically question arguments from expert opinion than to accept or reject them based solely on trust.
منابع مشابه
Expert-Guided Contrastive Opinion Summarization for Controversial Issues
This paper presents a new model for the task of contrastive opinion summarization (COS) particularly for controversial issues. Traditional COS methods, which mainly rely on sentence similarity measures are not sufficient for a complex controversial issue. We therefore propose an Expert-Guided Contrastive Opinion Summarization (ECOS) model. Compared to previous methods, our model can (1) integra...
متن کاملProfiles of Dialogue for Repairing Faults in Arguments from Expert Opinion
Using the profiles of dialogue method we identify a species of ad verecundiam fallacy that works by forestalling of questioning in arguments from expert opinion. A profile of dialogue is a graph structure used to model a sequence of speech acts surrounding both the putting forward of an argument and the response to it at the next moves in a dialogue. The method is applied to a case of cross-exa...
متن کاملValidity of the Opinion of a Physician Specializing in the fall or Conversion of the Punishment of a Warlord and Corruptor on Earth with Mental Disorders
Warlord and corruption on earth are among the security crimes in the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 1392, which are separated from each other and each has its own instances. But what is important in the meantime is that some perpetrators of these crimes are not psychologically and medically able to bear the punishment, so it remains to be seen whether, given the importance and severity of these ...
متن کاملEvaluating arguments from the reaction of the audience
In studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically focused on logical form and content. This emphasis has masked an important yet underappreciated aspect of everyday argument evaluation: social cues to argument strength. Here we focus on the ways in which observers evaluate arguments by the reaction they evoke in an audience. This type of evaluation is likely to occur e...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Argument & Computation
دوره 5 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014