Question-begging in non-cumulative systems

Mackenzie, Jim

doi:10.1007/bf00258422

Cited by 191 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, our work is based entirely on transcripts taken from video-taped design dialogues. Moreover, the model of Finkelstein and Fuks adopts the dialogue system DC of James MacKenzie [11], a system developed by philosophers of argumentation for analyzing fallacious or apparently fallacious arguments over beliefs; this purpose would seem to be inappropriate for representing dialogues over design, dialogues which presumably have as their end-purpose some actions or some plans for actions.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Agent Dialogue as a Tool for Capturing Software Design Discussions

Black

McBurney

Zschaler

2014

Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Software design is an important creative step in the engineering of software systems, yet we know surprisingly little about how humans actually do it. While it has been argued before that there is a need for formal frameworks to help capture design dialogues in a format amenable to analysis, there is almost no work that actually attempts to do so. In this paper, we take a first step in this direction by exploring the application of concepts from agent dialogues to the description of actual design dialogues between human software designers. We have found that this can be done in principle and present a set of dialogue moves that we have found useful in the coding of an example dialogue. Through this formulation of the dialogue, we were able to identify some interesting patterns of moves and dialogue structures. More importantly, we believe that such a representation of design dialogues provides a good basis for a better understanding of how designers interact.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Agent Dialogue as a Tool for Capturing Software Design Discussions

Black

McBurney

Zschaler

2014

Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That the participants are presupposed to be equipped with such belief bases doubtless derives in part from the context in which these approaches have been developed. The original example of the approach was probably Mackenzie [7] who was interested in exploring a particular logical fallacy. The take up in Computer Science has largely been by people working in knowledge based systems and logic programming, where the form of the belief base is a natural one to assume.…”

Section: Arguing From Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because the high number of misclassified cases in the We also have generated 250 cases presenting candidates from the merchant navy or diplomatic services and should therefore classify as not entitled to benefits (the agent using DS2 may misclassify these as entitled). 7 The difference in the accuracy scored when the proponent is using DS1 or DS2.…”

Section: Detailed Consideration Of Ds1 and Ds2mentioning

confidence: 99%

PADUA: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We describe PADUA, a protocol designed to support two agents debating a classification by offering arguments based on association rules mined from individual datasets. We motivate the style of argumentation supported by PADUA, and describe the protocol. We discuss the strategies and tactics that can be employed by agents participating in a PADUA dialogue. PADUA is applied to a typical problem in the classification of routine claims for a hypothetical welfare benefit. We particularly address the problems that arise from the extensive number of misclassified examples typically found in such domains, where the high error rate is a widely recognised problem. We give examples of the use of PADUA in this domain, and explore in particular the effect of intermediate predicates. We have also done a large scale evaluation designed to test the effectiveness of using PADUA to detect misclassified examples, and to provide a comparison with other classification systems.

show abstract

“…This paper takes the formal stance, studying the relation between formallogical and formal-dialogical accounts of argument. While formal logic has a long tradition, the first formal dialogue systems for argumentation where proposed in the 1970s, notably by the argumentation theorists Hamblin (1970Hamblin ( , 1971; Woods and Walton (1978) and Mackenzie (1979). In the 1990s AI researchers also became interested in dialogue systems for argumentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Without Arguments

Prakken

2011

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A well-known ambiguity in the term 'argument' is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of dialogical interaction, in which human or artificial agents aim to resolve a conflict of opinion by verbal means. Rules for conducting such dialogues and criteria for their quality are part of dialogue theory. Usually, formal accounts of argumentation dialogues in logic and artificial intelligence presuppose an argument-based logic. That is, the ways in which dialogue participants support and attack claims are modelled as the construction of explicit arguments and counterarguments (in the inferential sense). However, in this paper formal models of argumentation dialogues are discussed that do not presuppose arguments as inferential structures. The motivation for such models is that there are forms of inference that are not most naturally cast in the form of arguments (such as abduction, statistical reasoning and coherence-based reasoning) but that can still be the subject of argumentative dialogue. Some recent work in artificial intelligence is discussed which embeds non-argumentative inference in an argumentative dialogue system, and some general observations are drawn from this discussion.

show abstract

Question-begging in non-cumulative systems

Cited by 191 publications

References 5 publications

Towards Agent Dialogue as a Tool for Capturing Software Design Discussions

Towards Agent Dialogue as a Tool for Capturing Software Design Discussions

PADUA: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules

Argumentation Without Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About