Forms and Norms of Indecision in Argumentation Theory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02207v1
• Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 09:33:49 GMT
• Title: Forms and Norms of Indecision in Argumentation Theory
• Authors: Daniela Schuster
• Abstract summary: Indecision is often not considered explicitly, but rather taken to be a collection of all unclear or troubling cases. Current philosophy makes a strong point for taking indecision itself to be a proper object of consideration.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: One main goal of argumentation theory is to evaluate arguments and to determine whether they should be accepted or rejected. When there is no clear answer, a third option, being undecided, has to be taken into account. Indecision is often not considered explicitly, but rather taken to be a collection of all unclear or troubling cases. However, current philosophy makes a strong point for taking indecision itself to be a proper object of consideration. This paper aims at revealing parallels between the findings concerning indecision in philosophy and the treatment of indecision in argumentation theory. By investigating what philosophical forms and norms of indecision are involved in argumentation theory, we can improve our understanding of the different uncertain evidential situations in argumentation theory.

Related papers

• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement [92.61557711360652]
  Language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. We conduct a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of LMs through iterative hypothesis refinement. We reveal several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs in inductive reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T17:51:10Z)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Argumentation-Based Conclusions [5.1398743023989555]
  We discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation. We show under which conditions contrastive explanations are meaningful, and how argumentation allows us to make implicit foils explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T15:00:47Z)
• A General Counterexample to Any Decision Theory and Some Responses [1.713291434132985]
  I present an argument and a general schema which can be used to construct a problem case for any decision theory. I also present and discuss a number of possible responses to this argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-01T17:47:11Z)
• A Note on Bell's Theorem Logical Consistency [0.0]
  Counterfactual definiteness is supposed to underlie the Bell theorem. We show that counterfactual definiteness is an unnecessary and inconsistent assumption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-16T22:14:06Z)
• Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
  We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning) Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation. Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z)
• Cognitive Argumentation and the Suppression Task [1.027974860479791]
  This paper addresses the challenge of modeling human reasoning, within a new framework called Cognitive Argumentation. The framework relies on cognitive principles, based on empirical and theoretical work in Cognitive Science, to adapt a general and abstract framework of computational argumentation from AI. We argue that Cognitive Argumentation provides a coherent and cognitively adequate model for human conditional reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T10:30:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.