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).
- Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2022). Epicureans on Death and Lucretius’ Squandering Argument. Southwest Philosophy Review, 38(1), 41–49.
- 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.
- Barth E., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Finocchiaro, M. (2007). Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation, 21, 253–268.
- Finocchiaro, M. (2013). Meta-argumentation: An approach to logic and argumentation theory. London: College Publications.
- Godden, D., & Zenker, F. (2018). A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency. Synthese, 195, 1715–1740.
- 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.
- Govier, T. (1985). A practical study of argument, 1st through 7th editions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: a bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
- Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833–1873.
- Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
- Hamblin, C. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.
- Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
- Hitchcock, D. (1983). Critical Thinking: A Guide to Evaluating Information. Toronto: Methuen.
- Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A., (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
- 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)
- 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.
- Korb, K. (2004). Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic, 24, 41–70.
- Krabbe, E. C. W. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogue. Argumentation, 6, 271–283.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). The topical roots of formal dialectic. Argumentation, 27, 71–87.
- Krabbe, E.C.W. (2017). The formalization of a critical discussion. Argumentation, 31, 101–119.
- 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.
- 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.
- Modgil, S., & Prakken, H. (2014). The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument and Computation, 5(1), 31–62.
- Munch, J. M., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). Rhetorical question, summarization frequency, and argument strength effects on recall. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 69–76.
- Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2004). A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal for Experimental Psychology, 58, 75–85.
- Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
- Pfeifer, N. (2013). On argument strength. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 185–193). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518.
- Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
- Quine, W. V. O. (1992). Pursuit of truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
- Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
- Selinger, M. (2014). Towards formal representation and evaluation of arguments. Argumentation, 28(3), 379–393.
- 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.
- Spohn, W. (2012). The Laws of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Stiff, J. B. & Mongeau, P. A. (2016). Persuasive communication. New York: The Guilford Press.
- Thomas, S. N. (1986). Practical reasoning in natural language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [First edition 1973.]
- Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja [Argumentation, persuasion, manipulation]. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
- van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Vreeswijk, G. (1993). Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, [Doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam].
- Vreeswijk, G. (1997). Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90, 225–279.
- Walton, D. (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. London: Lanham.
- Walton, D. (2009). Objections, rebuttals and refutations. Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA.
- Walton, D. (2011). Modeling burden of proof in a modified Hamblin dialogue system. Informal Logic, 31, 279–304.
- Walton, D. (2015). Profiles of dialogue: A method of argument fault diagnosis and repair. Argumentation & Advocacy, 52, 91–108.
- Walton, D., & Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing informal logic. Informal Logic, 35(4), 508–538.
- Walton, D., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press.
- Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- 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.
- Yanal, R. J. (1991). Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic, 13, 137–144.
- Zenker, F. (Ed.) (2013.) Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. Dordrecht: Springer.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.