Towards Probabilistic Argumentation

Zukerman, Ingrid

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_22

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Bayesian Argumentation1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2012

2015

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The formal framework of Bayesian probability has swept a wide range of fields ranging from statistics (e.g., Bolstad 2004), computer science (e.g., Bishop 2006), cognitive science (e.g., Chater et al 2006), to epistemology (Bovens and Hartmann 2003), and has found increasing application to argumentation (e.g., Hahn and Oaksford 2007a;Oaksford and Hahn 2004;Korb 2004;Zukerman 2009;Harris et al 2012).…”

Section: Bayesian Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation

Hahn

Hornikx

2015

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation. Three sample argumentation schemes from the literature are discussed: the argument from sign, the argument from expert opinion, and the appeal to popular opinion. Limitations of the scheme-based treatment of these argument forms are identified and it is shown how a Bayesian perspective may help to overcome these. At the same time, the contributions of the standard scheme-based approach are highlighted, and it is argued that only a combination of the insights of different traditions will yield a complete normative theory of argument quality.

show abstract