Explanations and Arguments Based on Practical Reasoning
نویسنده
چکیده
In this paper a representative example is chosen that is meant be fairly simple for illustrating the point that in a very common kind of instance, argument and explanation are mixed in together in a text of discourse. The example is a short text found on the Internet that explains to the reader how to attach a flagpole bracket to the vinyl siding on the side of your house. The example uses practical reasoning (goal-directed reasoning) of a kind widely studied in AI and logic. While the text appears to be mainly a “how-to” explanation, it also contains argumentation woven into it, as shown by applying argumentation schemes (defeasible argument structures) representing common forms of argument. The problem is one of distinguishing between explanation and
منابع مشابه
On Computing Explanations for Non-Acceptable Arguments
Argumentation has the unique advantage of giving explanations to reasoning processes and results. Recent work studied how to give explanations for arguments that are acceptable, in terms of arguments defending it. This paper studies the counterpart of this problem by formalising explanations for arguments that are not acceptable. We give two different views (an argument-view and an attack-view)...
متن کاملAnalysis of Depression based on Meta-Ethics
Background: One of the most important issues that requires more attention is the role of philosophy in individual and social life. Although sciences such as psychology and sociology propose their theories based on philosophical foundations, the role of philosophy as a field which can be influential in solving humans’ problems is not paid due attention. One of the sciences where philosophy can h...
متن کاملOn Explanations for Non-Acceptable Arguments
Argumentation has the unique advantage of giving explanations to reasoning processes and results. Recent work studied how to give explanations for arguments that are acceptable, in terms of arguments defending it. This paper studies the counterpart of this problem by formalising explanations for arguments that are not acceptable. We give two different views (an argument-view and an attack-view)...
متن کاملLogical Argumentation, Abduction and Bayesian Decision Theory: A Bayesian Approach to Logical Arguments and its Application to Legal Evidential Reasoning
There are good normative arguments for using Bayesian decision theory for deciding what to do. However, there are also good arguments for using logic, where we want have a formal semantics for a language and use the structure of logical argumentation with logical variables to represent multiple individuals (things). This paper shows how decision theory and logical argumentation can be combined ...
متن کاملJustifying Practical Reasoning
In this paper we discuss arguments embodying practical reasoning — arguments as to what it is sensible for someone to do in a given situation. We draw attention to differences between practical reasoning and reasoning about beliefs, and suggest that practical arguments should be treated as a species of presumptive reasoning, best handled using argumentation schemes and associated critical quest...
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:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2009