Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Zenker, Frank; Dębowska-Kozłowska, Kamila; Godden, David; Selinger, Marcin; Wells, Simon

doi:10.2478/slgr-2023-0007

Abstract

Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.

References

Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2019). Epicureans on squandering life. Three Quarks Daily. URL=https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2019/02/epicureanson-squandering-life.html (accessed 10 FEB 2022).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2022). Epicureans on Death and Lucretius’ Squandering Argument. Southwest Philosophy Review, 38(1), 41–49.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34 (1–3), 197–215.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barth E., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. (2018). Abstract argumentation frameworks and their semantics. Handbook of Formal Argumentation (chapter 4, pp. 159–236.) London: College Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bayes, T. (1763/1958). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370–418. (Reprinted in Biometrika, 45, 296–315.)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bex, F. J. & Renooij, S. (2016). From Arguments to Constraints on a Bayesian Network. Computational Models of Argument. In P. Baroni, T. F. Gordon, T. Scheer and M. Stede (eds.) (2019), Proceedings of COMMA 2016, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, volume 287 (pp. 96–106). IOS Press: Amsterdam.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361–379). New York, N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Darke, P. R., & Chaiken, S. (2005). The pursuit of self-interest: Self-interest bias in attitude judgment and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 864–883.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70(3), 193–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0038674
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Finocchiaro, M. (2007). Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation, 21, 253–268.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Finocchiaro, M. (2013). Meta-argumentation: An approach to logic and argumentation theory. London: College Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Godden, D., & Zenker, F. (2018). A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency. Synthese, 195, 1715–1740.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006 (pp. 195–207). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Govier, T. (1985). A practical study of argument, 1st through 7th editions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: a bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833–1873.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamblin, C. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hitchcock, D. (1983). Critical Thinking: A Guide to Evaluating Information. Toronto: Methuen.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A., (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Keiff, L. (2011). Dialogue logic. In E. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/logic-dialogical/ (accessed 5 OCT 2019)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kononova, A., Yuan, S., & Joo, E. (2017). Reading about the flu online: How health-protective behavioral intentions are influenced by media multitasking, polychronicity, and strength of health-related arguments. Health Communication, 32(6), 759–767.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Korb, K. (2004). Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic, 24, 41–70.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogue. Argumentation, 6, 271–283.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M., Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday (pp. 25–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam– Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues In: van Eemeren F.H., J.A. Blair, C. Willard C., and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view (pp. 83–90). Dordrecht: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). The topical roots of formal dialectic. Argumentation, 27, 71–87.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2017). The formalization of a critical discussion. Argumentation, 31, 101–119.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E. C. W., & Walton, D. (2011). Formal dialectical systems and their uses in the study of argumentation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp. 245–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lavine, H. & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive Processing and the Functional Effect in Persuasion: The Mediating Role of Subjective Perceptions of Message Quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32(6), 580–604.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Modgil, S., & Prakken, H. (2014). The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument and Computation, 5(1), 31–62.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Munch, J. M., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). Rhetorical question, summarization frequency, and argument strength effects on recall. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 69–76.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2004). A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal for Experimental Psychology, 58, 75–85.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeifer, N. (2013). On argument strength. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 185–193). Dordrecht: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Quine, W. V. O. (1992). Pursuit of truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Selinger, M. (2014). Towards formal representation and evaluation of arguments. Argumentation, 28(3), 379–393.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Selinger, M. (2019). Towards defining the relation of attack. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1064–1073). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Spohn, W. (2012). The Laws of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stiff, J. B. & Mongeau, P. A. (2016). Persuasive communication. New York: The Guilford Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thomas, S. N. (1986). Practical reasoning in natural language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [First edition 1973.]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja [Argumentation, persuasion, manipulation]. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. (2014). Formal dialectical approaches. In van Eemeren et al. (Eds.) Handbook of argumentation theory (ch. 6, pp. 301–372). Dordrecht: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
von Borgstede, C., Andersson, M., & Hansla, A. (2014). Value-congruent information processing: The role of issue involvement and argument strength. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 461–477.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verheij, B. (1996). Two approaches to dialectical argumentation. Admissible sets and argumentation stages. Proceedings of the eighth Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (NAIC’96) (pp. 357–368).Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vreeswijk, G. (1993). Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, [Doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vreeswijk, G. (1997). Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90, 225–279.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. London: Lanham.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (2009). Objections, rebuttals and refutations. Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (2011). Modeling burden of proof in a modified Hamblin dialogue system. Informal Logic, 31, 279–304.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (2015). Profiles of dialogue: A method of argument fault diagnosis and repair. Argumentation & Advocacy, 52, 91–108.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., & Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing informal logic. Informal Logic, 35(4), 508–538.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wieten, R, Bex, F.J., Prakken, H. & Renooij, S. (2019). Constructing Bayesian network graphs from labelled arguments. In: G. Kern-Isberner and Z. Ognjanovic (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (pp. 99–110) (Springer LNAI Vol. 11726). Cham: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yanal, R. J. (1991). Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic, 13, 137–144.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zenker, F. (Ed.) (2013.) Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. Dordrecht: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zenker, F. (2015). Denying the antecedent probabilized: a dialectical view. In: Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., Godden, D., and Mitchell, G. (eds). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), July 2014 (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zenker, F., Debowska-Kozlowska, K., Godden, D., Selinger, M., Wells, S. (2020). Five approaches to argument strength: probabilistic, dialectical, structural, empirical, and computational. In: Dutilh Novaes, C., Jansen, H., van Laar, J. A. & Verheij, B. (eds.). Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. I (pp. 653–674) (Studies in Logic: Logic and Argumentation; Vol. 87). London: College Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhao. X., Strasser, A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 48–75.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhao, X., & Cappella, J. N. (2016). Perceived argument strength. In D. K. Kim & J. Dearing (eds.), Health Communication Research Measures (pp. 119–126). New York: Peter Lang.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Abstract

Paradigm

My account