A Plea for Ecological Argument Technologies

Philosophy and Technology

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 209-238

  Paglieri, Fabio ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF COGNITIVE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES   (Italy)

Author keywords

Argument technologies; Argumentation; Ecological rationality; Psychology of reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85019673742     PISSN: 22105433     EISSN: 22105441     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13347-016-0222-6     Document Type: Article

References (154)

1. Amgoud, L., & Prade, H. (2009). Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3–4), 413–436.
2. Antoci, A., Sabatini, F., & Sodini, M. (2015). Online and offline social participation and social poverty traps. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. forthcoming.
3. Baroni, P., & Giacomin, M. (2007). On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10), 675–700.
4. Bench-Capon, T., & Dunne, P. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10), 619–641.
5. Besnar, P., & Hunter, A. (2001). A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128(1–2), 203–235.
6. Bex, F., Lawrence, J., Snaith, M., & Reed, C. (2013). Implementing the argument web. Communications of the ACM, 56(10), 66–73.
7. Bex, F., Snaith, M., Lawrence, J., & Reed, C. (2014). ArguBlogging: an application for the argument web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 25, 9–15.
8. Boudry, M., Pigliucci, M., & Paglieri, F. (2015). The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: demarcating arguments in real life. Argumentation, 29(4), 431–456.
9. Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Cohere: towards web 2.0 argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2008 (pp. 97–108). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
10. Buckingham Shum, S., Selvin, A., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrík, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin: Springer.
11. Butterworth, J., & Thwaites, G. (2013). Thinking skills: critical thinking and problem solving (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. (2013). A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions. Argument & Computation, 4(3), 209–230.
13. Caminada, M., & Amgoud, L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171(5–6), 286–310.
14. Carbogim, D., Robertson, D., & Lee, J. (2000). Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(2), 119–149.
15. Chang, C. F., Miller, A., & Ghose, A. (2010). Mixed-initiative argumentation: group decision support in medicine. In P. Kostkova (Ed.), Electronic healthcare: proceedings of eHealth 2009 (pp. 43–50). Berlin: Springer.
16. Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., & Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.
17. Collins, P., Hahn, U., von Gerber, Y., & Olsson, E. (2015). The bi-directional relationship between source characteristics and message content. In D. Noelle, R. Dale, A. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. Jennings & P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 423–428). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
18. Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sierhuis, M. (2001). Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. In K. Grønbæk, H. Davis &Y. Douglas (Eds.), Hypertext’01: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 123–124). New York: ACM.
19. Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2012). Normative theories of argumentation: are some norms better than others? Synthese, 190(16), 3579–3610.
20. de Moor, A., & Aakhus, M. (2006). Argumentation support: from technologies to tools. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 93–98.
21. Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment. Washington: Pew Research Internet Project.
22. Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.
23. Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (2006). Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 170(2), 114–159.
24. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook friends: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 114–1168.
25. Ennis, R. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
26. Ennis, R. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 179–186.
27. Facione, P. (Ed.) (1990). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association: ERIC document ED 315–423.
28. Finocchiaro, M. (1981). Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning. American Philosophical Quarterly, 18(1), 13–22.
29. Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1984). Social cognition. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
30. Floridi, L. (2009). Logical fallacies as informational shortcuts. Synthese, 167, 317–325.
31. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
32. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
33. Gabbriellini, S., & Torroni, P. (2012). Large-scale agreements via microdebates. In S. Ossowski, G. Vouros & F. Toni (Eds.), AT 2012: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Agreement Technologies (pp. 366–377). Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org.
34. Garcia, A., & Simari, G. (2014). Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument & Computation, 5(1), 63–88.
35. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
36. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
37. Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (Eds.). (2011). Heuristics: the foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Goodwin, J. (1998). Forms of authority and the real ad verecundiam. Argumentation, 12(2), 267–280.
39. Gordon, T. (2010). An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In C. Tindale & C. Reed (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning (pp. 145–156). London: College Publications.
40. Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
41. Groarke, L. (2009). What’s wrong with the California critical thinking skills test? CT testing and accountability. In J. Sobocan & L. Groarke (Eds.), Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested? (pp. 35–54). London: The Althouse Press.
42. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.
43. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
44. Hahn, U., Harris, A. J. L., & Corner, A. (2009). Argument content and argument source: an exploration. Informal Logic, 29(4), 337–367.
45. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Harris, A. J. L. (2012). Testimony and argument: a Bayesian perspective. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation (pp. 15–38). Dordrecht: Springer.
46. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Harris, A. J. L. (2013). Rational inference, rational argument. Argument & Computation, 4, 21–35.
47. Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
48. Harris, A. J. L., Hsu, A. S., & Madsen, J. K. (2012). Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 311–343.
49. Hintikka, J. (1987). The fallacy of fallacies. Argumentation, 1(3), 211–238.
50. Hitchcock, D. (1995). Do the fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking? In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings (pp. 319–327). University Park: Penn State University Press.
51. Hitchcock, D. (2006). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In D. Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of logic (Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol. Volume 5, pp. 101–129). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
52. Hitchcock, D. (2007). Why there is no argumentum ad hominem fallacy. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Volume 1, pp. 615–620). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
53. Introne, J., & Iandoli, L. (2014). Improving decision-making performance through argumentation: an argument-based decision support system to compute with evidence. Decision Support Systems, 64, 79–89.
54. Janier, M., Lawrence, J., & Reed, C. (2014). OVA+: an argument analysis interface. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed & F. Cerutti (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014 (pp. 463–464). Amsterdam: IOS Press
55. Johnson, R., & Blair, A. (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
56. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
57. Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259–277.
58. Karunatillake, N., Jennings, N., Rahwan, I., & McBurney, P. (2009). Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9–10), 935–981.
59. Kirschner, P. (2015). Facebook as learning platform: argumentation superhighway or dead-end street? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 621–625.
60. Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., & Carr, C. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation. Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Berlin: Springer.
61. Klein, M. (2012). Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 21(4), 449–473.
62. Klein, M., & Convertino, G. (2014). An embarrassment of riches. Communications of the ACM, 57(11), 40–42.
63. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
65. Laughlin, P., & Ellis, A. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.
66. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Lawrence, J., Bex, F., & Reed, C. (2012). Dialogues on the argument web: mixed initiative argumentation with Arvina. In B. Verheij, S. Szeider & S. Woltran (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012 (pp. 513–514). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
68. Lawrence, J., Reed, C., Allen, C., McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Bourget, D. (2014). Mining arguments from 19th century philosophical texts using topic based modelling. In N. Green, K. Ashley, D. Litman, C. Reed & V. Walke (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 79–87). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL
69. Levesque, H. J. (1986). Making believers out of computers. Artificial Intelligence, 30(1), 81–108.
70. Levi, D. S. (1999). The fallacy of treating the ad baculum as a fallacy. Informal Logic, 19(2–3), 145–159.
71. Lindsay, B. (2009). Creating “the Wikipedia of pros and cons”. In D. Riehle & A. Bruckman (Eds.), WikiSym’09: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (n. 36). New York: ACM.
72. Mackenzie, P. T. (1980). Ad hominem and ad verecundiam. Informal Logic, 3(3), 9–11.
73. Massey, G. (1981). The fallacy behind fallacies. Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 6(1), 489–500.
74. McPeck, J. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10–12.
75. Mercier, H. (2010). The social origins of folk epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(4), 499–514.
76. Mercier, H. (2013). Our pigheaded core: how we became smarter to be influenced by other people. In K. Sterelny, R. Joyce, B. Calcott, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Cooperation and its evolution (pp. 373–398). Cambridge: MIT Press.
77. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2009). Intuitive and reflective inferences. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: dual processes and beyond (pp. 149–170). New York: Oxford University Press.
78. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
79. Mercier, H., Trouche, E., Yama, H., Heintz, C., & Girotto, V. (2015). Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 21(3), 341–355.
80. Mizrahi, M. (2010). Take my advice—I am not following it: ad hominem arguments as legitimate rebuttals to appeals to authority. Informal Logic, 30(4), 435–456.
81. Mochales Palau, R., & Moens, M.-F. (2009). Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In P. Casanovas & C. Hafner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial intelligence and Law (pp. 98–107). New York: ACM.
82. Mochales Palau, R., & Moens, M.-F. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(1), 1–22.
83. Modgil, S. (2009). Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9–10), 901–934.
84. Modgil, S., & Caminada, M. (2009). Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 105–129). Berlin: Springer.
85. Modgil, S., & Prakken, H. (2014). The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument and Computation, 5(1), 31–62.
86. Modgil, S., Toni, F., Bex, F., Bratko, I., Chesñevar, C., Dvorák, W., & Woltran, S. (2013). The added value of argumentation. In S. Ossowski (Ed.), Agreement technologies (pp. 357–403). Berlin: Springer.
87. Moens, M.-F., Boiy, E., Mochales Palau, R., & Reed, C. (2007). Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In A. Gardner & R. Winkels (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial intelligence and Law (pp. 225–230). New York: ACM.
88. Morge, M. (2008). The hedgehog and the fox. An argumentation-based decision support system. In I. Rahwan, S. Parsons & C. Reed (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Proceedings of ArgMAS 2007 (pp. 114–131). Berlin: Springer.
89. Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(3), 231–248.
90. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
91. O’Keefe, D. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Society, 13, 121–128.
92. Ossowski, S. (Ed.). (2012). Agreement technologies. Berlin: Springer.
93. Paglieri, F. (2016). Don’t worry, be gappy! On the unproblematic gappiness of fallacies. In F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, & S. Felletti (Eds.), The psychology of argument: cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion (pp. 153–172). London: College Publications.
94. Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument and Computation, 1(1), 71–91.
95. Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2013a). From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: a survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 7(1), 1–31.
96. Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2013b). Ranking the annotators: An agreement study on argumentation structure. In S. Dipper, M. Liakata & A. Pareja-Lora (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop & Interoperability with Discourse (pp. 196–204). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
97. Perkins, D., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
98. Possin, K. (2008). A field guide to critical-thinking assessment. Teaching Philosophy, 31(3), 201–228.
99. Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1(2), 93–124.
100. Rahwan, I. (2008). Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 29–37.
101. Rahwan, I., & McBurney, P. (2007). Argumentation technology. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6), 21–23.
102. Rahwan, I., & Simari, G. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Berlin: Springer.
103. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2004). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343–375.
104. Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., & Reed, C. (2007). Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 897–921.
105. Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B., Reed, C., Walton, D., & Abdallah, S. (2011). Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4), 487–511.
106. Rahwan, I., Krasnoshtan, D., Shariff, A., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2014). Analytical reasoning task reveals limits of social learning in networks. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 11(93), 20131211.
107. Rainie, L., Lenhart, A., & Smith, A. (2012). The tone of life on social networking sites. Washington: Pew Internet Research Center.
108. Reed, C., & Norman, T. (Eds.). (2004). Argumentation machines. Berlin: Springer.
109. Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(4), 961–980.
110. Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Argumentation schemes in argument-as-process and argument-as-product. in J. A. Blair, D. Farr, H. Hansen, R. Johnson and C. Tindale (Eds.), Informal Logic @ 25: Proceedings of the 5th OSSA Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
111. Reed, C., Wells, S., Snaith, M., Budzynska, K., & Lawrence, J. (2011). Using an argument ontology to develop pedagogical tool suites. In P. Blackburn, H. van Ditmarsch, M. Manzano, & F. Soler-Toscano (Eds.), Tools for teaching logic: proceedings of TICTTL 2011 (pp. 207–214). Berlin: Springer.
112. Rowe, G., Macagno, F., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2006). Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 29(2), 111–124.
113. Sà, W., West, R., & Stanovich, K. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 497–510.
114. Sabatini, F., & Sarracino, F. (2014). Online networks and subjective well-being. ArXiv, 1408, 3550.
115. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.
116. Schneider, J. (2014). An informatics perspective on argumentation mining. In E. Cabrio, S. Villata, & A. Wyner (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on frontiers and connections between argumentation theory and natural language processing (pp. 1–4). Aachen: CEUR-WS.org.
117. Schneider, J., Groza, T., & Passant, A. (2012a). A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web. Semantic Web-Interoperability, Usability, Applicability, 4(2), 159–218.
118. Schneider, J., Passant, A., & Decker, S. (2012b). Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: decision factors and outcomes. In C. Lampe (Ed.), WikiSym2012: Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (n. 17). New York: ACM.
119. Schneider, J., Samp, K., Passant, A., & Decker, S. (2013). Arguments about deletion: how experience improves the acceptability of arguments in ad-hoc online task groups. In A. Bruckman, S. Counts, C. Lampe & L. Terveen (Eds.), CSCW2013: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1069–1080). New York: ACM.
120. Scriven, M. (1987). Fallacies of statistical substitution. Argumentation, 1, 333–349.
121. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
122. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393.
123. Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(3), 225–247.
124. Steinfield, C., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434–445.
125. Stone, M. (2012). Denying the antecedent: its effective use in argumentation. Informal Logic, 32(3), 327–356.
126. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Doubleday.
127. Toplak, M., West, R., & Stanovich, K. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275–1289.
128. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
129. Towne, W. B., & Herbsleb, J. (2012). Design considerations for online deliberation systems. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 97–115.
130. Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(5), 1958–1971.
131. Trouche, E., Johansson, P., Hall, L., & Mercier, H. (in press). The selective laziness of reasoning. Cognitive Science, doi: 10.1111/cogs.12303
132. Tsovaltzi, D., Greenhow, C., & Asterhan, C. (2015a). When friends argue: learning from and through social network site discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 567–569.
133. Tsovaltzi, D., Judele, R., Puhl, T., & Weinberger, A. (2015b). Scripts, individual preparation and group awareness support in the service of learning in Facebook: how does CSCL compare to social networking sites? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 577–592.
134. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110.
135. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases (pp. 153–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
136. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.
137. van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Relevance reviewed: the case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6(2), 14–159.
138. van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1995). The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings (pp. 130–144). University Park: Penn State University Press.
139. Walton, D. (1992). Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 29(4), 381–387.
140. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
141. Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: arguments from authority. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
142. Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
143. Walton, D. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13(4), 367–377.
144. Walton, D. (2000). Scare tactics: arguments that appeal to fear and threats. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
145. Walton, D., & Godden, D. M. (2007). Informal logic and the dialectical approach to argument. In H. Hansen & R. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed (pp. 3–17). Newport News: Vale Press.
146. Walton, D., & Gordon, T. (2012). The Carneades model of argument invention. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(1), 1–31.
147. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
148. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology: I (pp. 106–137). Harmandsworth: Penguin.
149. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191–211). Berlin: Springer.
150. Woods, J. (1998). Argumentum ad baculum. Argumentation, 12(4), 493–504.
151. Woods, J. (2013). Errors of reasoning. Naturalizing the logic of inference. London: College Publications.
152. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1974). Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 7(3), 135–153.
153. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1978). The fallacy of ‘ad ignorantiam’. Dialectica, 32(2), 87–99.
154. Yaglikci, N., & Torroni, P. (2014). Microdebates app for Android: a tool for participating in argumentative online debates using a handheld device. In A. Andreou & G. A. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Proceedings of ICTAI 2014: IEEE 26th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (pp. 792–799). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.