Argumentation theory
Encyclopedia : A : AR : ARG : Argumentation theory
As it relates to philosophy, argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish a convincing conclusion about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Argumentation theory employs the field of informal logic in constructing credible arguments and identifying faulty reasoning.
Argumentation is also a formal discipline within artificial intelligence where the aim is to make a computer assist in or perform the act of argumentation. Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising i) a set of assumptions or premises, ii) a method of reasoning or deduction and iii) a conclusion or point. Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments that by definition have no internal structure.
In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Doug Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.
The key components of argumentation:
- Understanding and identifying the presentation of an argument, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
- Identifying the conclusion and the premises from which the conclusion is derived
- Establishing the "Burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
- For the one carrying the "Burden of proof", the defender, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked
- For the attacker, to listen and find faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument