Timeline for Model of an argument
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2023 at 1:54 | vote | accept | causative♦ | ||
| Sep 19, 2023 at 15:27 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 11:49 | answer | added | Bumble | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 0:34 | comment | added | causative♦ | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 0:02 | comment | added | causative♦ | @Conifold Can you give an example of an argument that contains a justificational loop, that you would say is both reasonable and cannot be modeled as an acyclic justification graph? I am somewhat open to the concept, if you can give such an example. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 23:55 | comment | added | Conifold | Justificational loops are broadly accepted. You are free to disagree, but if you want a model of informal arguments it should incorporate them. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 23:51 | comment | added | causative♦ | @Conifold If you have two theoretical claims supported by empirical evidence, then the evidence supports both, rather than one theory supporting the other. There should be no loops in the support structure; it is from evidence to theory. Remove the evidence and the two theories should not continue supporting each other. If they do, that's an epistemological problem. Still, there is something to coherentism. "X is a coherent theory" does lend support for X. In my model, "X is a coherent theory" would exist as a proposition node in the graph, to be supported by other nodes without any loops. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 23:40 | comment | added | Conifold | In informal arguments partial circularity is not fallacious (vicious circularity is just a degenerate case), it is the basis of coherentism, for example. If you have two theoretical claims, each supported by empirical evidence (inconclusively), then their mutual support boosts both. This can be quantified in Bayesianism. Warrants are more field-specific inference rules than premises, their justification structure (backing) is more complex than by plain arguments, so maybe not syntactic sugar. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 23:27 | comment | added | causative♦ | @Conifold When different claims support each other mutually, breaking the DAG structure, that's circular reasoning (normally considered a fallacy). Toulmin's model is worth looking at. However, I don't see any important difference between a warrant and just an additional premise. My model also accounts for defeasability. Certainly Toulmin's model has more types of nodes than mine, the question is whether those node types are truly necessary to model the argument or just syntactic sugar. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 23:08 | comment | added | Conifold | Kristian Berry had several posts here on epistemic justification graphs, and one of the features was that they are not linear from premises to conclusions because different claims "support" each other mutually. Another feature of informal arguments is that directed edges do not quite fit because inferences have more complex structure (due to warrants and defeasability) captured, for example, by Toulmin's model. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 21:12 | comment | added | Michael Carey | Basically, I'm claiming that not all contradictions are equivalent in Rational, informal argument. It's entirely possible to have a contradiction or weakly justified argument... but your overall message is still stronger/more persuasive than an argument which is airtight, but purely tautological and breaks no new ground or lacks any application or motivational/compelling features. Should we adopt positions only if they are true? Or can we adopt positions because they are interesting/compelling and motivating further development of our positions? | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 21:08 | comment | added | Michael Carey | I think appeals to the beauty of a story can be integrated into a Rational Position, if you have it as a premise that the mere fact that a story is aesthetic is telling you something about the importance of the story. It depends on what you find important, under a principle of, it is better to be wrong in an interesting way than right in a boring way can lend itself to Rationally adopting a story that has contradictions over a story that has no contradictions - but is devoid of any interesting features. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 20:50 | comment | added | causative♦ | @MichaelCarey But is the aesthetic quality of the story something we should rationally be persuaded by, or is it an illusion the listener should minimize and try to peel away? I'm trying to model appeals to reason, not the appeals to emotion and other non-rational tactics often used in practice. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 20:36 | comment | added | Double Knot | Any logic flow could be said to be painted to be as DAG or better yet a lattice or even a simple 1-d sequence if needed though as Michael Carey mentioned it may not be impressive enough to be mentioned... | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 20:31 | comment | added | Michael Carey | I think there's an important element that isn't being mentioned. Casual Arguments are more than following a chain of premises to conclusions, they are about how such a chain paints a picture/story that is compelling. So, what makes a justification graph good or bad isnt whether it's premises are weak or if it has contradictions- but rather if it paints an aesthetic picture and tells a compelling story. The most important part of the justification graph is, is it a sexy graph? | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 20:23 | comment | added | causative♦ | @DoubleKnot What's similar? The other post doesn't even mention justification graphs. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 20:13 | comment | added | Double Knot | What's new from your recent similar question about (defeasible) logic of reflective equilibrium besides more formalism in appearance?... | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 17:39 | history | edited | causative♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 672 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Sep 18, 2023 at 16:55 | history | asked | causative♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |