Rational argument, rational inference

Argument and Computation

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 21-35

  Hahn, Ulrike ^a,c   Harris, Adam J L ^b   Oaksford, Mike ^c  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

argument automated reasoning; Bayesian probability; cognitive science; conditionals; formal models of argumentation; interdisciplinary links with computational argument

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED REASONING; BAYESIAN PROBABILITIES; COGNITIVE SCIENCE; CONDITIONALS; FORMAL MODEL; INTERDISCIPLINARY LINKS WITH COMPUTATIONAL ARGUMENT;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84874092091     PISSN: 19462166     EISSN: 19462174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19462166.2012.689327     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Adams, E.W. (1998), A Primer of Probability Logic, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
2. Anderson, J.R. (1990), The Adaptive Character of Human Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
3. Anderson, R.C., Chinn, C., Chang, J.,Waggoner, M., andYi,H. (1997), 'On the Logical Integrity of Children's Arguments', Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135-167.
4. Bailenson, J. (2001), 'Contrast Ratio: Shifting Burden of Proof in InformalArguments', Discourse Processes, 32, 29-41.
5. Bailenson, J.N., and Rips, L.J. (1996), 'Informal Reasoning and Burden of Proof', Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S3-S16. (Pubitemid 126470728)
6. Bennett, J. (2003), A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Bovens, L., and Hartmann, S. (2003), Bayesian Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Braine, M.D.S., and O'Brien, D.P. (1991), 'A Theory of If: A Lexical Entry, Reasoning Program, and Pragmatic Principles', Psychological Review, 98, 182-203.
9. Chater, N., and Oaksford, M. (eds)2008 The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for BayesianCognitive Science, Oxford University Press.
10. Chater, N., Oaksford, M., Heit, E., and Hahn, U. (2010), 'Inductive Logic and Empirical Psychology', in The Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. 10), eds. S. Hartmann and J.Woods, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11. Christmann, U., Mischo, C., and Groeben, N. (2000), 'Components of the Evaluation of IntegrityViolations in Argumentative Discussions: Relevant Factors and their Relationships', Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 315-341.
12. Corner, A.J., and Hahn, U. (2009), 'Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty & Argument Strength', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 199-212.
13. Corner, A., Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2011), 'The Psychological Mechanism of the Slippery Slope Argument', Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 153-170.
14. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000), 'Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms', Science Education, 84, 287-312.
15. Earman, J. (1992), Bayes or Bust? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Edgington, D. (1995), 'On Conditionals', Mind, 104, 235-329.
17. van Eemeren, F.H., and Grootendorst, R. (2004), A Systematic Theory of Argumentation-The Pragma-Dialectical Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., and Meuffels, B. (2009), Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules, Dordrecht: Springer.
19. van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., and Meuffels, B. (2012), 'The Disguised Abusive Ad Hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic Maneuvering with Direct Personal Attacks', Thinking and Reasoning 18, 344-346.
20. Evans, J.St.B.T., and Over, D.E. (2004), If, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., and Gentner, D. (1989), 'The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples', Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
22. Fodor, J.A. (1975), The Language of Thought, NewYork: ThomasY. Crowell.
23. Fodor, J. (1983), The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press.
24. French, R. (1995), The Subtlety of Sameness: A Theory and Computer Model of Analogy-Making, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Gentner, D. (1983), 'Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy', Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.
26. Gentner, D. (1989), 'The Mechanisms of Analogical Transfer', in Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, eds. S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199-242.
27. Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., and Neuman, Y. (2005), 'Pupils' evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation'. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 105-118. (Pubitemid 40465820)
28. Hahn, U. (2009), 'Explaining More by Drawing On Less', Commentary on Oaksford, M. and Chater, N., Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 90-91.
29. Hahn, U. (2011), 'The Problem of Circularity in Evidence, Argument and Explanation', Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 172-182.
30. Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2006a), 'A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies', Synthese, 152, 207-236. (Pubitemid 44510927)
31. Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2006b), 'Why a Normative Theory of Argument Strength and Why Might One Want It to be Bayesian?', Informal Logic, 26, 1-24.
32. Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2007a), 'The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies', Psychological Review, 114, 704-732.
33. Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2007b), 'The Burden of Proof and its Role in Argumentation', Argumentation, 21, 39-61.
34. Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2012), 'Rational Argument', in The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, eds. Holyoak, R. and Morrison, K. Oxford: Oxford university Press, pp. 277-300.
35. Hahn, U., Harris, A.J.L., and Corner, A.J. (2009), 'Argument Content andArgument Source:An Exploration', Informal Logic, 29, 337-367.
36. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Bayindir, H. (2005), 'How convinced should we be by Negative Evidence?' in Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds. B. Bara, L. Barsalou, and M. Bucciarelli, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 887-892).
37. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., and Harris, A.J.L. (2012), 'Testimony and Argument: A Bayesian Perspective', in Bayesian Argumentation, ed. Zenker, F., Springer Library.
38. Hamblin, C.L. (1970), Fallacies, London: Methuen.
39. Harris, A.J.L., and Hahn, U. (2009), 'Bayesian Rationality in Evaluating Multiple Testimonies: Incorporating the Role of Coherence', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 1366-1373.
40. Harris, A.J.L., Hsu, A.S., and Madsen, J.K. (2012), 'Because Hitler Did It! Quantitative Tests of Bayesian Argumentation Using Ad Hominem', Thinking & Reasoning 18, 311-343.
41. Heit, E. (1998), 'A Bayesian Analysis of Some Forms of Inductive Reasoning', in Rational Models of Cognition, eds. M. Oaksford and N. Chater, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 248-274.
42. Heit, E. (2007), What is induction and why study it? in Inductive Reasoning: experimental, developmental and computational approaches, eds. A. Feeney and E. Heit, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
43. Heit, E., and Rotello, C.M. (2010), 'Relations Between Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 805-812.
44. Henle, M. (1962), 'On the Relation Between Logic and Thinking', Psychological Review, 69, 366-378.
45. Hoeken, H., Timmers, R. and Schellens, PJ (2012), 'Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?' Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 394-416.
46. Hofstadter, D. (1995), Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought, NewYork: Basic Books.
47. Holyoak, K.J., and Thagard, P. (1989), 'Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction', Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
48. Hornikx, J., and Hahn, U. (2012), 'Inference and Argument', Thinking and Reasoning 18, 225-243.
49. Howson, C., and Urbach, P. (1996), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Chicago: Open Court.
50. Hummel, J.E., and Holyoak, K.J. (1997), 'Distributed Representations of Structure:A Theory of Analogical Access and Mapping', Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
51. Keane, M.T., Ledgeway, T., and Duff, S. (1994), 'Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models', Cognitive Science, 18, 387-438.
52. Kemp, C., andTenenbaum, J.B. (2009), 'Structured Statistical Models of Inductive Reasoning', Psychological Review, 116, 20-58.
53. Klaczynski, P. (2000), 'Motivated Scientific Reasoning Biases, Epistemological Biases, and Theory Polarisation: A Two Process Approach to Adolescent Cognition', Child Development, 71, 1347-1366.
54. Klauer, K.C., Stahl, C., and Erdfelder, E. (2007), 'The Abstract Selection Task: New Data and an Almost Comprehensive Model', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 680-703.
55. Kuhn, D. (1989), 'Children and Adults as Intuitive Scientists', Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
56. Kuhn, D. (1991), The Skills of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Kuhn, D. (1993), 'Science asArgument: Implications forTeaching and Learning Scientific Thinking', Science Education, 77, 319-337.
58. Kuhn, D., and Udell, W. (2003), 'The Development of Argument Skills', Child Development, 74, 1245-1260. (Pubitemid 37268970)
59. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., and Weinstock, M. (2000), 'The Development of Epistemological Under-Standing', Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328.
60. Lagnado, D.A., Fenton, N.&Neil, M. (2012), 'Legal idioms: a framework for evidential reasoning'. Argument and Computation, online first.
61. McKenzie, C.R.M., Ferreira, V.S., Mikkelsen, L.A., McDermott, K.J., and Skrable, R.P. (2001), 'Do Conditional Statements Target Rare Events?' Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 85, 291-309. (Pubitemid 33653043)
62. Means, M.L., andVoss, J.F. (1996), 'Who ReasonsWell?Two Studies of Informal Reasoning among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels', Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-179.
63. Neuman,Y.,Weinstock, M.P., and Glasner,A. (2006), 'The Effect of Contextual Factors on the Judgment of Informal Reasoning Fallacies', Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 59(A), 411-425. (Pubitemid 43421138)
64. Oaksford, M., and Chater, N. (1991), 'Against Logicist Cognitive Science', Mind and Language, 6, 1-38.
65. Oaksford, M., and Chater, N. (1994), 'A Rational Analysis of the Selection Task as Optimal Data Selection', Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
66. Oaksford, M., and Chater, N. (eds) 1998 Rational Models of Cognition, Oxford University Press.
67. Oaksford, M., and Chater,N. (2007), Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. Oaksford, M., Chater, N., and Larkin, J. (2000), 'Probabilities and Polarity Biases in Conditional Inference', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 883-889.
69. Oaksford, M., and Hahn, U. (2004), 'A Bayesian Approach to the Argument from Ignorance', Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 75-85. (Pubitemid 38783108)
70. Oaksford, M., and Hahn, U. (2007), 'Induction, Deduction and Argument Strength in Human Reasoning and Argumentation', in Inductive Reasoning, eds. A. Feeney and E. Heit, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 269-301.
71. Oaksford, M., and Hahn, U. (in press), 'Why AreWe Convinced by the Ad Hominem Argument?: Bayesian Source Reliability or Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.' in Bayesian Argumentation, ed. Zenker, F., Springer Library.
72. Oberauer, K. (2006), 'Reasoning with Conditionals: A Test of Formal Models of Four Theories', Cognitive Psychology, 53, 238-283. (Pubitemid 44405443)
73. O'Keefe, D.J. (1977), 'Two Concepts of Argument', The Journal of the American Forensic Association, XIII, 121-128.
74. Olsson, E.J. (2005), Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
75. Osherson, D., Smith, E.E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., and Shafir, E. (1990), 'Category Based Induction', Psychological Review, 97, 185-200.
76. Pearl, J. (1988), Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
77. Rips, L. (1975), 'Inductive Judgements about Natural Categories', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 14, 665-681.
78. Rips, L.J. (1998), 'Reasoning and Conversation', Psychological Review, 105, 411-441.
79. Rips, L.J. (2001a), 'Two Kinds of Reasoning', Psychological Science, 12, 129-134. (Pubitemid 33653520)
80. Rips, L.J. (2001b), 'Reasoning Imperialism', in Common Sense, Reasoning, and Rationality, ed. R. Elio, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215-235.
81. Rips, L.J. (2002), 'Circular Reasoning', Cognitive Science, 26, 767-795.
82. Sadler, T.D. (2004), 'Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
83. Schroyens,W., and Schaeken,W.A. (2003), 'A Critique of Oaksford, Chater, and Larkin's (2000) Conditional Probability Model of Conditional Reasoning', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 140-149. (Pubitemid 37177394)
84. Tenenbaum, J.B., Kemp, C., and Shafto, P. (2007), 'Theory-Based Bayesian Models of Inductive Reasoning', in Inductive Reasoning, eds. A. Feeney and E. Heit, Cambridge University Press.
85. Toulmin, S. (1958), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
86. Walton, D.N. (1995), A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
87. Wason, P.C., and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1972), Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content, London: Batsford.
88. Woods, J.W. (2004), The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent Based Reasoning (Applied Logic Series; Vol. 32), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
89. Zhao, J., & Osherson, D. (2010), 'Updating Beliefs in Light of Uncertain Evidence: Descriptive Assessment of Jeffrey's Rule', Thinking & Reasoning, 16(4), 288-307.