Testimony and argument: a Bayesian perspective

Philosophers have become increasingly interested in testimony (e.g. Coady, Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992; Kusch & Lipton, Stud Hist Philos Sci 33:209–217). In the context of argumentation and persuasion, the distinction between the content of a message and its source is a natural and important one. The distinction has consequently attracted considerable attention within psychological research. There has also been a range of normative attempts to deal with the question of how source and message characteristics should combine to give rise to an overall evaluation of evidential strength (e.g. Walton, Witness testimony evidence: Argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008). This chapter treats this issue from the perspective of the Bayesian approach to argument (Hahn & Oaksford, Psychol Rev 114:704–732, 2007a; Hahn et al., Informal Log 29:337–367, 2009) and summarises empirical evidence on key intuitions.

[1]  M. Kusch,et al.  Testimony: a primer , 2002 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[3]  Ralph H. Johnson Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument , 2000 .

[4]  Peter J. Ball,et al.  Child-Witness and Defendant Credibility: Child Evidence Presentation Mode and Judicial Instructions1 , 2001 .

[5]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[6]  C. Clifton,et al.  Stress Matters: Effects of Anticipated Lexical Stress on Silent Reading. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[7]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  The Problem of Circularity in Evidence, Argument, and Explanation , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[8]  Ernest W. Adams,et al.  A primer of probability logic , 1996 .

[9]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies , 2006, Synthese.

[10]  M. Oaksford,et al.  The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. , 2007, Psychological review.

[11]  P. Kleingeld,et al.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2013 .

[12]  Peter J. Graham,et al.  What is Testimony , 1997 .

[13]  J. E. Russo,et al.  Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Henry E. Kyburg,et al.  Probability and the logic of rational belief , 1970 .

[15]  M. Oaksford,et al.  A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[16]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[17]  Torsten Reimer,et al.  The use of heuristics in persuasion : deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality , 2004 .

[18]  W. Stroebe,et al.  The Influence of Beliefs and Goals on Attitudes: Issues of Structure, Function, and Dynamics. , 2005 .

[19]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Relevance in argumentation , 2003 .

[20]  L. Cohen,et al.  WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR TESTIMONIAL CORROBORATION? , 1982, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[21]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[22]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion , 1981 .

[24]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Persuading and Dissuading by Conditional Argument. , 2005 .

[25]  Rules for Plausible Reasoning , 1992 .

[26]  David A. Lagnado,et al.  Legal idioms: a framework for evidential reasoning , 2013, Argument Comput..

[27]  P. Skolnick,et al.  A Comparison of Eyewitness and Physical Evidence on Mock-Juror Decision Making , 2001 .

[28]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Witness testimony evidence - argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law , 2007 .

[29]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Introduction To Logic , 1958 .

[30]  D. Schum Sorting out the effects of witness sensitivity and response-criterion placement upon the inferential value of testimonial evidence , 1981 .

[31]  Gary Kemp,et al.  Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide , 2001 .

[32]  William Hughes Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills , 1992 .

[33]  S. Körner,et al.  Introduction to Logic . By Irving M. Copi. (The Macmillan Company, New York. Pp. 472. Price $4.00.) , 1954, Philosophy.

[34]  Tomoji Shogenji Self-Dependent Justification Without Circularity , 2000, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[35]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach , 2003 .

[36]  Jean-François Bonnefon,et al.  Formal Models of Reasoning in Cognitive Psychology , 2013, Argument Comput..

[37]  Douglas Walton Ad Hominem Arguments , 1998 .

[38]  M. Oaksford,et al.  The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument , 2011 .

[39]  M H Birnbaum,et al.  Combining information from sources that vary in credibility , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[40]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  A normative theory of argument strength , 2008 .

[41]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[42]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Why Are We Convinced by the Ad Hominem Argument?: Bayesian Source Reliability and Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules , 2013 .

[43]  Chezy Ofir,et al.  Context Effects on Judgment under Uncertainty , 1984 .

[44]  D. Walton Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments , 2001 .

[45]  J. Bennett,et al.  Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , 2010 .

[46]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Plausible reasoning , 1976 .

[47]  S. Ratneshwar,et al.  The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion , 1997 .

[48]  C. Tindale Fallacies and Argument Appraisal , 2007 .

[49]  B. Mellers,et al.  Bayesian inference: Combining base rates with opinions of sources who vary in credibility. , 1983 .

[50]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[51]  Elizabeth F Loftus,et al.  Leading questions and the eyewitness report , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[52]  J. Blamey Upping the Stakes and the Preface Paradox , 2013 .

[53]  Adam J. L. Harris,et al.  Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration , 2009 .

[54]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[55]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

[56]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  The Handbook of Attitudes , 2005 .

[57]  D. Makinson The paradox of the preface , 1965 .

[58]  C. A. J. Coady,et al.  Testimony: A Philosophical Study. , 1994 .

[59]  The Effects Of Clinical And Scientific Expert Testimony On Juror Decision Making In Capital Sentencing , 2001 .

[60]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[61]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Evaluating science arguments: evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[62]  Peter Achinstein,et al.  Concepts of Evidence , 1978 .

[63]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Source Reliability and the Conjunction Fallacy , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[64]  Frank Zenker Bayesian Argumentation: The practical side of probability , 2012 .

[65]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion , 1984 .

[66]  Aviezer Tucker MIRACLES, HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES, AND PROBABILITIES , 2005 .

[67]  I. Horowitz,et al.  The Bottom Line: The Effect of Written Expert Witness Statements on Juror Verdicts and Information Processing , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[68]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[69]  Richard D. Friedman,et al.  Route Analysis of Credibility and Hearsay , 1987 .

[70]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[71]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. , 1999 .

[72]  D. Schum The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning , 1994 .

[73]  Kathleen H Corriveau,et al.  Young children's selective trust in informants , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[74]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  A Survey of Uncertainties and Their Consequences in Probabilistic Legal Argumentation , 2013 .

[75]  A. Goldman Knowledge in a Social World , 1999 .

[76]  S. Chaiken Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[77]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation , 2007 .

[78]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment: Bias, Expertise, and the Judge's Point of View , 1979 .