Rational Argumentation under Uncertainty
نویسنده
چکیده
Common sense arguments are practically always about incomplete and uncertain information. We distinguish two aspects or kinds of uncertainty. The one is defined as a persons’ uncertainty about the truth of a sentence. The other uncertainty is defined as a persons’ uncertainty of his assessment of the truth of a sentence. In everyday life argumentation we are often faced with both kinds of uncertainty which should be distinguished to avoid misunderstandings among discussants. The paper presents a probabilistic account of both kinds of uncertainty in the framework of coherence. Furthermore, intuitions about the evaluation of the strength of arguments are explored. Both reasoning about uncertainty and the development of a theory of argument strength are central for a realistic theory of rational argumentation.
منابع مشابه
Strawmen and eidolons: using argumentation to reason across scenarios
We propose a dialectical argumentation formalism for qualitative reasoning under uncertainty in a context of alternative scenarios. Our formalism extends prior work representing knowledge uncertainty using dialectical argumentation in participant interaction spaces called Agoras. We define the notion of a scenario in this framework and consider its formal properties. In particular, we ask when ...
متن کاملWhat is the plausibility of probability?
We present and examine a result related to uncertainty reasoning, namely that a certain plausibility measure of Cox’s type can be uniquely embedded in a minimal ordered field. This, although a purely mathematical result, can be claimed to imply that every rational method to reason with uncertainty must be based on sets of extended probability distributions, where extended probability is standar...
متن کاملArgumentation and Risk Assessment
Over the last ten years we have been involved in the development of a formal framework for decision making and reasoning under uncertainty based on "argumentation". The latter provides a way of managing uncertainty which differs from probabilistic inference and is particularly valuable in those many practical situations where uncertainty cannot be quantified. Recently we have been applying argu...
متن کاملA Unified Setting for Inference and Decision: An Argumentation-based Approach
Inferring from inconsistency and making decisions are two problems which have always been treated separately by researchers in Artificial Intelligence. Consequently, different models have been proposed for each category. Different argumentation systems [1, 6, 9, 10] have been developed for handling inconsistency in knowledge bases. Recently, other argumentation systems [2, 3, 7] have been defin...
متن کاملExplaining Qualitative Decision under Uncertainty by Argumentation
Decision making under uncertainty is usually based on the comparative evaluation of different alternatives by means of a decision criterion. In a qualitative setting, pessimistic and optimistic criteria have been proposed. In that setting, the whole decision process is compacted into a criterion formula on the basis of which alternatives are compared. It is thus impossible for an end user to un...
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 2007