| Argumentation Theory |
Website Links For Theory |
Information AboutArgumentation Theory |
|
As it relates to Philosophy , argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish a convincing conclusion about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature too deep to be answerable by science alone. Argumentation theory employs the field of Informal Logic in constructing credible arguments and identifying faulty reasoning. Argumentation is also a formal discipline within Artificial Intelligence where the aim is to make a computer assist in or perform the act of argumentation. Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising i) a set of assumptions or premises, ii) a method of reasoning or deduction and iii) a conclusion or point. Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments that by definition have no internal structure. In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions. The key components of argumentation:
SEE ALSO LINKS ON ARGUMENTATION THEORY
|
|
|