The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argumentation schemes are common types of defeasible argument evaluated with critical questions. This position paper identifies and explores some unsolved problems pertaining to critical questions, such as their argumentative effects, their connection to burden of proof, their connection to the scheme itself, and how they should be represented in argument diagrams. Discussion will use the scheme for argument from practical reasoning as an illustrative example.
منابع مشابه
Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions
This paper begins a working-through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the ev...
متن کاملQuestions, Arguments, and Natural Language Semantics
Computational models of argumentation can be understood to bridge between human and automated reasoning. Argumentation schemes represent stereotypical, defeasible reasoning patterns. Critical questions are associated with argumentation schemes and are said to attack arguments. The paper highlights several issues with the current understanding of critical questions in argumentation. It provides ...
متن کاملA Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemes
Argumentation schemes have been developed in argumentation theory as stereotypical patterns of inference, abstract structures representing the material (semantic) relation and logical relation between the premises and a conclusion in an argument with a corresponding set of critical questions indicating their defeasibility conditions (Walton et al. 2008). They can be regarded as the modern inter...
متن کاملSolving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes
In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are...
متن کاملCapturing Critical Questions in Bayesian Network Fragments
Legal reasoning with evidence can be a challenging task. We study the relation between two formal approaches that can aid the construction of legal proof: argumentation and Bayesian networks (BNs). Argument schemes are used to describe recurring patterns in argumentation. Critical questions for many argument schemes have been identified. Due to the increased use of statistical forensic evidence...
متن کامل