Synthese

pp 1–26 | Cite as

A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

Article

Abstract

This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency (RSA). Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: (1) change in the commitment to the reason, (2) the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, (3) one’s prior commitment to the claim, and (4) the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual (in)dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but also show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align.

Keywords

Acceptability Argument appraisal Bayes theorem Informal logic Jeffrey conditionalization Relevance Sufficiency 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, J. A. (2011). Informal logic and its early historical development. Studies in Logic, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, J. A. (2012). Relevance, acceptability and sufficiency today. In C. Tindale (Ed.), Groundwork in the theory of argumentation (pp. 87–100). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. (1987). The current state of informal logic. Informal Logic, 9, 147–151.Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, S. (2015). Imprecise probabilities. In E. N. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2015 edition. Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/imprecise-probabilities/
  6. Cohen, J. L. (1989). An introduction to the philosophy of induction and probability. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R. (1962). The logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2013). Normative theories of argumentation: Are some norms better than others? Synthese, 190, 3579–3610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). The slippery slope argument: Probability, utility and category reappraisal. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1145–1150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, R. T. (1946). Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation. American Journal of Physics, 14, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, R. T. (1961). The algebra of probable inference. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP.Google Scholar
  12. Douven, I., & Schupbach, J. N. (2015). The role of explanatory considerations in updating. Cognition, 142, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, J. S. T. B. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitelson, B. (2001). Studies in Bayesian confirmation theory. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison. http://fitelson.org/thesis.pdf.
  15. Godden, D. (2010). The importance of belief in argumentation: Belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese, 172, 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godden, D., & Walton, D. (2007). Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic, 27, 267–292.Google Scholar
  17. Godden, D., & Zenker, F. (2015). Denying antecedents and affirming consequents: The state of the art. Informal Logic, 35, 88–134.Google Scholar
  18. Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  19. Hahn, U. (2014). The Bayesian boom: Good thing or bad? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 765. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006a). A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006b). A normative theory of argument strength. Informal Logic, 26, 1–24.Google Scholar
  23. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Bayindir, H. (2005). How convinced should we be by negative evidence? In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 887–892). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Corner, A. (2005). Circular arguments, begging the question and the formalization of argument strength. In A. Russell, T. Honkela, K. Lagus, & M. Pöllä (Eds.), Proceedings of AMKLC’05, International symposium on adaptive models of knowledge, language and cognition (pp. 34–40). Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar
  26. Hajek, A. (2008). Dutch book arguments. In P. Anand, P. Pattanaik, & C. Puppe (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of rational and social choice (pp. 173–195). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, A. J. L., Hahn, U., Madsen, J. K., & Hsu, A. (2015). The appeal to expert opinion: Quantitative support for a Bayesian network approach. Cognitive Science. doi:10.1111/cogs.12276.
  29. Hertwig, R., Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Deductive competence: A desert devoid of content and context. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 102–107.Google Scholar
  30. Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  31. Ikuenobe, P. (2004). On the theoretical unification and nature of the fallacies. Argumentation, 18, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jeffrey, R. (1983). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, R. H. (2006). Making sense of informal logic. Informal Logic, 26, 231–258.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, R. (2011). Informal logic and deductivism. Studies in Logic, 4, 17–37.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, R., & Blair, J. A. (2002). Informal logic and the reconfiguration of logic. In D. Gabbay, R. Johnson, H. Ohlbach, & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: Turn towards the practical (pp. 340–396). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, R., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical self defense (3rd ed.). New York: International Debate Education Association (First edition 1977, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson).Google Scholar
  38. Joyce, J. (2009). Bayes’ theorem. In E. N. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2009 edition (pp. 1–47). Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/bayes-theorem/
  39. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1933). Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitrechnung, Ergebnisse Der Mathematik. Berlin: Springer (translated as: (1950). Foundations of Probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company).Google Scholar
  40. Korb, K. (2004). Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic, 24, 41–70.Google Scholar
  41. Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2004). A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal for Experimental Psychology, 58, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfeifer, N. (2013). On argument strength. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 185–193). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Powers, L. H. (1995). The one fallacy theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 303–314.Google Scholar
  45. Ramsey, F. (1926/1931). Truth and probability. In R. Braithwaite (Ed.), The foundations of mathematics and other essays (pp. 156–198). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief: Ranking functions and their applications. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strevens, M. (2012). Notes on Bayesian confirmation theory. http://www.strevens.org/bct/
  48. Talbot, W. (2011). Bayesian epistemology. In E. N. Zalta et al. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2011 edition (pp. 1–34). Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/epistemology-bayesian/
  49. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wegemans, J. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vorobej, M. (2006). A theory of argument. New York: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walton, D., & Gordon, T. (2015). Formalizing informal logic. Informal Logic, 35, 508–538.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woods, J. (2000). How philosophical is informal logic? Informal Logic, 20, 139–167.Google Scholar
  54. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (2007). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Zenker, F. (2013). Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zenker, F. (2016). The polysemy of ‘fallacy’—or ‘bias’, for that matter. In: Bondy, P., and Benaquista, L. (eds). Argumentation, objectivity and bias (Proceedings of the 11th conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation, 18–21 May, 2016) (pp. 1–14). Windsor, ON: OSSA. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Universität Konstanz, PhilosophieKonstanzGermany
  3. 3.Slovak Academy of SciencesInstitute of PhilosophyBratislavaSlovakia
  4. 4.Department of Philosophy and Cognitive ScienceLUX, Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations