On some argumentative modifications in logic
Keywords:argumentation schemes, evaluations, degrees of conviction, the transmission of justification, plausible arguments, degrees of values
Abstract. The reorientation of logical research from the analysis of individual sentences to the analysis of argument systems leads to some changes in logic itself. Such a reorientation is due to the features of plausible arguments put forward to support decision-making. One such feature is that applying the rules of inference does not guarantee that the conclusion of a plausible argument is justified. It is necessary to explain how exactly the transition from the premises to the conclusion of such an argument takes place. It must be established that the transmission of the justification from the premises to the conclusion with the help of the rules of inference really took place. It depends on this whether the individual is committed to accepting the conclusion and applying it in his further reasoning.
The basis for accepting the conclusion of a plausible argument as justified is a successful defense against counterargument attacks. The introduction of the means of presentation of the competition of arguments into the logic is one of the features of its communicative transformation.
The conclusions of plausible arguments are justified only to a certain extent. It is recommended not to strive for full justification of conclusions, but to establish only the degree of their justification, precisely because of the incompleteness of information, presented in the premises of such arguments.
In the semantics used to justify the conclusions of plausible arguments, the premises and rules of inference are assigned degrees of conviction. They reflect the strength of these structural components of arguments. And the justification of the conclusion of the argument is calculated on the basis of assigning degrees of conviction to its components and components of its counterarguments.
Argumentation depends on values, so the database used to build arguments must also contain information about them. Just like beliefs, values can also have degrees. Semantic rules for calculating the degree of justification of conclusions should take these degrees into account. Logical semantics, modified in this way, appears to be the most suitable tool for evaluating practical plausible arguments, and in particular for answering critical questions raised about such arguments.
Eemeren van, F.H., Verheij, B. (2017). Argumentation Theory in Formal and Computational Perspective // The IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, V. 4, № 8, 2099-2181.
Grasso, F., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G.R. (2010). Introducing Argument & Computation // Argument & Computation, V.1, № 1, 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19462161003734804
Habermas, J. (1998). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Twelve Lectures. Translated by Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kyburg, H. E. Jr. (1994). Uncertainty Logics. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Edited by Dov M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 397- 439.
Macagno, F., Walton, D., Reed, C. (2017). Argumentation Schemes. History, Classifications, and Computational Applications // IFCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, V. 4, № 8, 2493-2556.
Nute, D., Erk, K. (1996). Defeasible Logic Graphs for Decision Support // Proceedings of the 1996 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29), IEEE, 11-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1996.495375
Pollock, J. L. (2006). Thinking about Acting. Logical foundations for Logical Decision Making, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304817.001.0001
Pollock, J. (2008). Defeasible Reasoning. In: J. E. Adler, L. J. Rips, eds. Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 451- 470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814273.025
Pollock, J. L. (2010). Defeasible Reasoning and Degrees of Justiﬁcation // DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19462161003728921
Argument and Computation, V. 1, №, 7-22.
Spohn, W. (2012). The Laws of Belief. Ranking Theory and Its Philosophical Applications, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697502.001.0001
Tucker, Chris. (2010). When Transmission Fails // Philosophical Review 119: 497-529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2010-012
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 volodymyr navrotskyi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.