Results 21 to 30 of about 16,600,438 (304)
An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2023 In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments?
Marcos Cramer, Leendert van der Torre
openaire +3 more sources
New Dialectical Rules For Ambiguity
Informal Logic, 2000 A set often rules is proposed for dealing with problems of ambiguity when interpreting a text of argumentative discourse. The rules are based on Grice's pragmatic rules for a collaborative conversation and on principles and maxims used to deal with ...
Douglas Walton
doaj +1 more source
A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy
Informal Logic, 2012 Following a Toulmian account of argument analysis and evaluation, I offer a general unitary schema for, so called, deductive and inductive types of analogical arguments.
Lilian Bermejo-Luque
doaj +3 more sources
The Generalized Criterion of Relevance for Argument Evaluation [PDF]
Future Human Image, 2021 The paper is devoted to the relevance criterion of argument evaluation within argumentation theory. Argument evaluation is a tool to avoid misunderstanding and misleading in argumentation — one of the most basic forms of human communications. The purpose
Viktoriia Babiuk
doaj +1 more source
Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific? [PDF]
Argumentation, 2017 Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of
Peter Jan Schellens +3 more
openaire +2 more sources
Bad Arguments and Objectively Bad Arguments
Informal Logic, 2023 Many have argued that it is impossible to determine criteria to identify good arguments. In this contribution, we argue that it is at least possible to identify features of objectively bad arguments.
Michael Hoffmann, Richard Catrambone
doaj +1 more source
Localism vs. Individualism for the Scientific Realism Debate [PDF]
, 2019 Localism is the view that the unit of evaluation in the scientific realism debate is a single scientific discipline, sub-discipline, or claim, whereas individualism is the view that the unit of evaluation is a single scientific theory.
Block Ned +10 more
core +4 more sources
Justification and Argumentation
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 2014 In her paper “Argumentation theory and the conception of epistemic justification”, Lilian Bermejo-Luque presents a critique of deductivism in argumentation theory, as well as her own concept of epistemic justification inspired by the views of Stephen ...
Szymanek Krzysztof
doaj +1 more source
Romanian Journal of English Studies, 2014 The article applies a recently developed framework for the reconstruction and evaluation of arguments based on practical reasoning (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) to the analysis of a public consultation session organised by the Romanian Ministry of ...
Mădroane Irina Diana
doaj +1 more source
Argumentation schemes, fallacies, and evidence in politicians’ argumentative tweets—A coded dataset
Data in Brief, 2022 This coded database presents a corpus of argumentative tweets published by four politicians (Matteo Salvini, Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Joe Biden) within 6 months from their taking office, which corresponds to the official end of their election ...
Fabrizio Macagno
doaj +1 more source