Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Author:

Zenker Frank1ORCID,Dębowska-Kozłowska Kamila2ORCID,Godden David3ORCID,Selinger Marcin4ORCID,Wells Simon5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. College of Philosophy , Nankai University , Tianjin , P.R. China

2. Faculty of English, Department of Pragmatics of English , Adam Mickiewicz University , Poznań , Poland

3. Philosophy Department , Michigan State University , East Lansing, Michigan , USA

4. Department of Logic and Methodology of Sciences , University of Wrocław , Wrocław , Poland

5. School of Computing , Edinburgh Napier University , Edinburgh , Scotland

Abstract

Abstract Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference71 articles.

1. Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2019). Epicureans on squandering life. Three Quarks Daily. URL=https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2019/02/epicureanson-squandering-life.html (accessed 10 FEB 2022).

2. Aikin, S. F., & Talisse, R. B. (2022). Epicureans on Death and Lucretius’ Squandering Argument. Southwest Philosophy Review, 38(1), 41–49.

3. Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34 (1–3), 197–215.

4. Barth E., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.

5. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. (2018). Abstract argumentation frameworks and their semantics. Handbook of Formal Argumentation (chapter 4, pp. 159–236.) London: College Publications.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3