Why the Fence Is the Seat of Reason When Experts Disagree

Hinton, Martin

doi:10.1080/02691728.2019.1577512

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, I make it clear at this juncture that I shall not engage in discussion of what makes a source an expert, how experts may be evaluated, or how compared with one another. These are issues which I have addressed elsewhere (Hinton 2018a(Hinton , 2018b(Hinton , 2019 as have several of those cited above as well as the likes of Goldman (2001), Shanteau et al (2002), and, more recently, Collins (2018) and Watson (2019), among many others. An expert is understood as someone in possession of epistemic or cognitive authority: someone regarded as an expert by whomever is making the argument.…”

Section: Arguments From Authoritymentioning

confidence: 90%

On Appeals to Non-existent Authorities as Arguments from Analogy

Hinton

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herein, I consider arguments resting on an appeal to a non-existent authority as a species of argument from authority, and ultimately show them to be reliant on arguments from analogy in their inferential force. Three sub-types of argument are discussed: from authorities as yet unborn, no longer living, or incapable of ever doing so. In each case it is shown that an element of arguing from analogy is required since there can be no direct evidence of any assertions of the source. In conclusion, it is suggested that such steps of analogy are employed frequently in traditional arguments from authority.

show abstract

Section: Arguments From Authoritymentioning

confidence: 90%

On Appeals to Non-existent Authorities as Arguments from Analogy

Hinton

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arguments from authority are complex and continue to receive a great deal of scholarly attention [5,13,14,26,32]. There are a number of sub-questions which can be asked concerning the exact nature of the authority, the testimony, and the question at hand.…”

Section: Hinton and Jhm Wagemans / How Persuasive Is Ai-generated Arg...mentioning

confidence: 99%

How persuasive is AI-generated argumentation? An analysis of the quality of an argumentative text produced by the GPT-3 AI text generator

Hinton

Wagemans

2023

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) in evaluating the arguments produced by an Artificial Intelligence text generator, GPT-3, in an opinion piece written for the Guardian newspaper. The CAPNA examines instances of argumentation in three aspects: their Process, Reasoning and Expression. Initial Analysis is conducted using the Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP) to establish, firstly, that an argument is present and, secondly, its specific type in terms of the argument classification framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA). Procedural Questions are then used to test the acceptability of the argument in each of the three aspects. The analysis shows that while the arguments put forward by the AI text generator are varied in terms of their type and follow familiar patterns of human reasoning, they contain obvious weaknesses. From this we can conclude that the automated generation of persuasive, well-reasoned argumentation is a far more difficult task than the generation of meaningful language, and that if AI systems producing arguments are to be persuasive, they require a method of checking the plausibility of their own output.

show abstract

“…However, "rocksolid," widely-accepted epistemic norms, whether fundamentalist or coherentist, are either uninformative or frequently unavailable (Hamblin 1970), thus explaining discursive impasses or deep disagreements (Fogelin 1985). And once fundamental principles of truth, knowledge, and evidence are at issue, even agreed-upon procedures to establish epistemic credentials may not suffice to reach a resolution (Hinton 2019). Particularly in the absence of a fruitful coherentist epistemology, the rhetorical approach to argumentation alone seems to acknowledge that arguers must ultimately live with contingent decisions of their own making.…”

Section: Conflicting Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme.

show abstract

Why the Fence Is the Seat of Reason When Experts Disagree

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

On Appeals to Non-existent Authorities as Arguments from Analogy

On Appeals to Non-existent Authorities as Arguments from Analogy

How persuasive is AI-generated argumentation? An analysis of the quality of an argumentative text produced by the GPT-3 AI text generator

Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About