The Toulmin Contention Model in Counterfeit consciousness Or: how semi-formal, defeasible argumentation plans creep into.


37 views
Uploaded on:
Description
The Uses of Argument. Unique point:
Transcripts
Slide 1

The Toulmin Argument Model in Artificial Intelligence Or: how semi-formal, defeasible argumentation plans creep into rationale Bart Verheij Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Slide 3

The Uses of Argument Original point: \'to scrutinize the supposition, made by most Anglo-American scholastic scholars, that any noteworthy contention can be placed in formal terms: not pretty much as a syllogism, since for Aristotle himself any surmising can be known as a "syllogism" or \'connecting of proclamations\', yet an unbendingly definite finding of the kind to be found in Euclidean geometry.\'

Slide 4

The Uses of Argument \'In no chance had I set out to elucidate a hypothesis of talk or argumentation: my worry was with twentieth-century epistemology, not casual rationale.\'

Slide 5

Toulmin\'s model Hitchcock, D., & B. Verheij (eds.) (2006). Contending on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Argumentation Library , Vol. 10. Springer, Dordrecht. Hitchcock, D. & B. Verheij (2005). The Toulmin show today: Introduction to unique issue of Argumentation on contemporary work utilizing Stephen Edelston Toulmin\'s format of contentions. Argumentation , Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 255-258.

Slide 6

Toulmin\'s model

Slide 7

Main subjects of Toulmin (1958) Argument investigation includes about six unmistakable components, not only two.

Slide 8

(1) Anne is one of Jack\'s sisters; All Jack\'s sisters have red hair; So, Anne has red hair. (2) P(t) (  x) (P(x) → Q(x)) - - Q(t)

Slide 9

(1, backing variant) Anne is one of Jack\'s sisters; Each one of Jack\'s sisters has (been checked independently to have) red hair; So, Anne has red hair. (1, warrant variant) Anne is one of Jack\'s sisters; Any sister of Jack\'s will (i.e. might be taken to) have red hair; So, Anne has red hair.

Slide 10

Toulmin\'s adjustment of (1): Datum: Anne is one of Jack\'s sisters. Claim: Anne has red hair. Warrant: Any sister of Jack\'s will (i.e. might be taken to) have red hair. Backing: All his sisters have already been seen to have red hair. Qualifier: Presumably Rebuttal: Anne has colored/gone white/lost her hair ...

Slide 11

Main subjects of Toulmin (1958) Argument examination includes about six unmistakable components, not only two. Numerous, if not most, contentions are generous, subsequently defeasible.

Slide 12

Three warrants: A whale will be a vertebrate A Bermudan will be a Briton A Saudi Arabian will be a Muslim Point to comparable inferential associations: Infer that a specific whale is a warm blooded animal Infer that a specific Bermudan is a Briton Infer that a specific Saudi Arabian is a Muslim

Slide 13

But depend on various types of measures: A whale will be (i.e. is classifiable as ) a well evolved creature A Bermudan will be ( according to the law ) a Briton A Saudi Arabian will be ( observed to be ) a Muslim Backings utilize: An arrangement of taxonomical grouping Statutes representing the nationality of individuals conceived in the British settlements Statistics on the appropriation of religious convictions among nationalities

Slide 14

Main subjects of Toulmin (1958) Argument investigation includes about six particular components, not only two. Numerous, if not most, contentions are considerable, consequently defeasible. Models of good thinking and contention appraisal are non-widespread.

Slide 15

Logic as brain research Describe an individual mastermind\'s reasoning Logic as humanism Describe general propensities and practices Logic as innovation Provide formulas for objectivity Logic as science Find truths about intelligent relations Logic as law Emphasize the cases we make for our cases

Slide 16

Main subjects of Toulmin (1958) Argument examination includes about six unmistakable components, not only two. Numerous, if not most, contentions are considerable, subsequently defeasible. Principles of good thinking and contention evaluation are non-all inclusive. Rationale is to be viewed as summed up law.

Slide 17

The gathering and refinement of Toulmin\'s thoughts in Artificial Intelligence 3.1 Reiter\'s default principles 3.2 Pollock\'s undermining and refuting defeaters 3.3 Prakken, Sartor & Hage on prevailing upon lawful tenets 3.4 Dung\'s acceptable sets 3.5 Walton\'s argumentation plans 3.6 Reed & Rowe\'s contention investigation programming 3.7 Verheij\'s formal remaking of Toulmin\'s plan

Slide 19

The assault connection as a coordinated chart (Dung 1995)

Slide 20

       Admissible sets Admissible, e.g.: { ,  }, {, , , , } Not allowable, e.g.: { ,  }, {  }

Slide 21

Dung\'s sorts of augmentations (1995) A contention free arrangement of contentions is a steady expansion on the off chance that all contentions that are not in the set are assaulted by a contention in the set. An allowable arrangement of contentions is a favored augmentation on the off chance that it is a permissible set that is maximal as for set consideration. An arrangement of contentions is a finished augmentation in the event that it is an acceptable set that contains all contentions of which all assailants are assaulted by the set. An arrangement of contentions is a (the) grounded expansion in the event that it is a negligible complete augmentation.

Slide 22

From sets to labelings (1996) A stage augmentation is a will be a contention free arrangement of contentions, for which the union of the set with the arrangement of contentions assaulted by it is maximal. An arrangement of contentions is an acceptable stage augmentation on the off chance that it is a permissible set, for which the union of the set with the arrangement of contentions assaulted by it is maximal.

Slide 23

From sets to labelings (1996) A stage expansion is a will be a contention free arrangement of contentions, for which the union of the set with the arrangement of contentions assaulted by it is maximal. An arrangement of contentions is a permissible stage expansion on the off chance that it is an allowable set, for which the union of the set with the arrangement of contentions assaulted by it is maximal. semi-stable augmentation (2006)

Slide 24

Compatibility sorts Dialectical avocation sorts

Slide 25

A woodland of expansion sorts Compatibility sorts Dialectical legitimization sorts

Slide 26

A backwoods of expansion sorts … :- ( Compatibility sorts Dialectical defense sorts

Slide 27

From sets to labelings A timberland of augmentation sorts Don\'t disregard support

Slide 28

Pros & cons Peter has struck Jack Peter has attacked Jack Police officer Jim affirms that he saw Peter striking Jack Police officer Anne affirms that she saw Peter not ambushing Jack

Slide 29

Toulmin\'s 1958 warrants Peter has attacked Jack The warrant Police officers typically are correct Police officer Jim affirms that he saw Peter striking Jack

Slide 30

Pollock\'s 1987 undermining defeaters Peter has struck Jack The undercutter Jim is lying Police officer Jim affirms that he saw Peter striking Jack

Slide 31

Preferred and stable expansions The thoughts of acceptability and favored and stable augmentations can be summed up to this setting. E.g., direct interpretation of acceptability: Require barrier against every single assaulting subset of Δ Subtle distinction (admissible*): Require resistance against every inconsistent subset of Δ For assault diagrams: allowable = admissible*.

Slide 32

The "sticking" hypothesis Theorem . There is a steady expansion of Δ if and just if there is a contention free arrangement of sentences DA  Δ (the disambiguation) with the end goal that there is a DA-good acceptable confirmation or a permissible invalidation (and not both) for every component of Δ. Without *: holds for assault charts, however not for assault bolster diagrams with settling (trapped rationalistic contentions) With*: holds for both. *

Slide 33

Example All 3-component subsets are allowable. All sentences are suitably provable, and none is reasonably refutable 1 . Still there is no steady augmentation. Be that as it may, no sentence is admissible*. p2 p1 ~> q p2 ~> (q ~>  q)} p1, p2 p1 q 1 Admissible nullification is here characterized as assault by a permissible, and not as non-participation of the union of admissibles.

Slide 34

From sets to labelings A backwoods of expansion sorts Don\'t disregard bolster Finding warrants is a learning designing assignment

Slide 35

Walton on argumentation plans Generic AH a will be an awful individual. Thusly, a\'s contention An ought not be acknowledged. - > a semi-formal guideline of deduction

Slide 36

Walton on argumentation plans Argumentation plans accompany basic inquiries , e.g., for Generic AH : CQ1 Is the reason genuine (or very much bolstered) that a will be an awful individual? CQ2 Is the affirmation that a will be a terrible individual applicable to judging a\'s contention A? CQ3 Is the finish of the contention that An ought to be (completely) dismisses regardless of the possibility that other proof to bolster A has been exhibited, or is the conclusion just (the relative claim) that an ought to be alloted a decreased weight of believability, in respect to the aggregate group of confirmation accessible?

Slide 37

Finding warrants is a learning designing undertaking 1. Determine the pertinent sorts of sentences 2. Determine the restrictive relations , i.e., the predecessors and consequents of the argumentation plans Determine the special cases , i.e, the contentions against the utilization of the argumentation plans Determine the states of utilization for the argumentation plans (Not essentially in a specific order and maybe at times doing a reversal to prior strides)

Slide 38

From sets to labelings A backwoods of augmentation sorts Don\'t disregard bolster Finding warrants is an information building assignment How much rationale makes a difference?

Slide 39

Argument partners are PC programs that backing factious errands Analogy: Text composing aides ( otherwise known as word preparing programming) are PC programs that bolster content written work assignments Argumentation programming

Slide 40

Underlying defeasible rationale Automatic assessment Argument development Natural moves Arguing abo

Recommended
View more...