Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach

This paper compares current ways of modeling the inferential structure of practical (goal-based) reasoning arguments, and proposes a new approach in which it is regarded in a modular way. Practical reasoning is not simply seen as reasoning from a goal and a means to an action using the basic argumentation scheme. Instead, it is conceived as a complex structure of classificatory, evaluative, and practical inferences, which is formalized as a cluster of three types of distinct and interlocked argumentation schemes. Using two real examples, we show how applying the three types of schemes to a cluster of practical argumentation allows an argument analyst to reconstruct the tacit premises presupposed and evaluate the argumentative reasoning steps involved. This approach will be shown to overcome the limitations of the existing models of practical reasoning arguments within the BDI and commitment theoretical frameworks, providing a useful tool for discourse analysis and other disciplines. In particular, applying this method brings to light the crucial role of classification in practical argumentation, showing how the ordering of values and preferences is only one of the possible areas of deep disagreement.

[1]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  Act and Person in Argument , 1951, Ethics.

[2]  Aristotle.  The Complete Works Of Aristotle , 1954 .

[3]  A. Montefiore.  THE VARIETIES OF GOODNESS , 1963 .

[4]  Douglas W. Ehninger,et al.  Decision by debate , 1963 .

[5]  P. Foot.  The Varieties of Goodness. , 1965 .

[6]  Chaïm Perelman,et al.  Le raisonnement pratique , 1968 .

[7]  Ruth E. Chambers.  Topics , 1973, Seminars in Perinatology.

[8]  D. Boethius,et al.  Boethius's "De topicis differentiis" , 1978 .

[9]  D. Clarke.  VARIETIES OF PRACTICAL INFERENCE , 1979 .

[10]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[11]  K. Segerberg.  A topological logic of action , 1984 .

[12]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[13]  David J. Israel,et al.  Plans and resource‐bounded practical reasoning , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[14]  R. Audi.  Practical reasoning and ethical decision , 1989 .

[15]  James G. March,et al.  How Decisions Happen in Organizations , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[16]  Margaret Gilbert,et al.  Promising, Intending, and Moral Autonomy. , 1991 .

[17]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective , 1992 .

[18]  D. Walton.  Slippery Slope Arguments , 1992 .

[19]  Geoffrey D. Klinger.  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies.By Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst , 1994 .

[20]  Daniel A. Westberg.  Right Practical Reason: Aristotle, Action, and Prudence in Aquinas , 1994 .

[21]  H. Richardson.  Practical Reasoning about Final Ends , 1994 .

[22]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[23]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[24]  Nancy E. Reed,et al.  Practical Reasoning , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[25]  E. Schiappa.  Constructing Reality Through Definitions: The Politics of Meaning , 1998 .

[26]  John R. Bowlin.  Contingency and Fortune in Aquinas's Ethics , 1999 .

[27]  B. Geurts.  Presuppositions and Pronouns , 1999 .

[28]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[29]  P. Engel.  Believing and accepting , 2000 .

[30]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence , 2001 .

[31]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.

[32]  E. Schiappa.  Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning , 2003 .

[33]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Towards a computational account of persuasion in law , 2003, ICAIL.

[34]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[35]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments , 2003 .

[36]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[37]  Christian Kock.  Multidimensionality and Non-Deductiveness in Deliberative Argumentation , 2003 .

[38]  P. Sniderman,et al.  CHAPTER 5: The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing , 2004 .

[39]  R. Audi.  Reasons, practical reason, and practical reasoning , 2004 .

[40]  F. Paglieri,et al.  Arguments as Belief Structures: Towards a Toulmin Layout of Doxastic Dynamics? , 2005 .

[41]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes , 2005, Synthese.

[42]  P. Whiteley.  Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[43]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Computational Representation of Practical Argument , 2006, Synthese.

[44]  John R. Searle,et al.  Desire, Deliberation and Action , 2005, Logic, Thought and Action.

[45]  R. Sellars.  Rhetoric , 1996, The Classical Review.

[46]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[47]  Alan Finlayson.  From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political Analysis , 2007 .

[48]  K. Maier.  INQUIRY , 2007 .

[49]  James N. Druckman,et al.  F RAMING T HEORY , 2007 .

[50]  D. Walton,et al.  The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions , 2008 .

[51]  S. Erduran,et al.  Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge , 2008 .

[52]  D. Walton,et al.  Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements , 2008 .

[53]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[54]  C. L. Hamblin.  Mathematical models of dialogue1 , 2008 .

[55]  Christian Kock.  Dialectical Obligations in Political Debate , 2008 .

[56]  Christian Kock.  Is Practical Reasoning Presumptive , 2008 .

[57]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory , 2008, J. Appl. Log..

[58]  C. Beyssade,et al.  Commitment : une attitude dialogique , 2009 .

[59]  Mercè Garcia-Milà,et al.  Deliberation versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom , 2009 .

[60]  F. Dignum,et al.  Practical Reasoning Using Values ? Giving Meaning to Values , 2009 .

[61]  D. Walton,et al.  Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions , 2009 .

[62]  G. Lakoff.  Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment , 2010 .

[63]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions , 2010 .

[64]  D. Walton.  Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are , 2010 .

[65]  J. Dryzek.  Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance , 2011 .

[66]  J. Raz.  From Normativity to Responsibility , 2012 .

[67]  N. Fairclough,et al.  Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students , 2012 .

[68]  Kevin Morrell.  The Nichomachean Ethics , 2012 .

[69]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises: Presumptions in Enthymemes , 2013 .

[70]  Larry S. Temkin,et al.  Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning , 2012 .

[71]  Mercè Garcia-Milà,et al.  What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education , 2013 .

[72]  N. Fairclough.  Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies , 2013 .

[73]  Mercè Garcia-Milà,et al.  The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse , 2013 .

[74]  D. Walton,et al.  Emotive Language in Argumentation: Contents , 2014 .

[75]  D. Walton,et al.  Emotive Language in Argumentation , 2014 .

[76]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Argue with Me: Argument as a Path to Developing Students' Thinking and Writing , 2015 .

[77]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Argumentation Theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies , 2015 .

[78]  Douglas Walton.  Goal-based Reasoning for Argumentation , 2015 .

[79]  J. Blair,et al.  Informal Logic , 2003 .

[80]  D. Walton,et al.  The Importance and Trickiness of Definition Strategies in Legal and Political Argumentation , 2015 .

[81]  Fabrizio Douglas Macagno,et al.  Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments , 2015 .

[82]  Frans H. van Eemeren,et al.  The Pragma-Dialectical Method of Analysis and Evaluation , 2015, Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse.

[83]  Douglas Walton,et al.  A classification system for argumentation schemes , 2015, Argument Comput..

[84]  M. Baker,et al.  Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice , 2016 .

[85]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Developing Argumentation Strategies in Electronic Dialogs: Is Modeling Effective? , 2016 .

[86]  I DeMotuAni,et al.  ON SO-CALLED PRACTICAL INFERENCE , 2016 .

[87]  Paula Olmos.  Meta-argumentation in deliberative discourse: Rhetoric 1360b05-1365b21 , 2016 .

[88]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances , 2016, Argument Comput..

[89]  B. Geurts.  Presupposition and Givenness , 2016 .

[90]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Profiles of Dialogue for Relevance , 2016 .

[91]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue , 2016 .

[92]  G. Brun,et al.  Analysing Practical Argumentation , 2016 .

[93]  A. Faber.  A Systematic Theory Of Argumentation The Pragma Dialectical Approach , 2016 .

[94]  M. Baker,et al.  Argumentation Theory for Education , 2017 .

[95]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Defaults and inferences in interpretation , 2017 .

[96]  David Hitchcock,et al.  On Reasoning and Argument, Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , 2017, Argumentation Library.

[97]  Tsafrir Goldberg,et al.  Harnessing emotions to deliberative argumentation in classroom discussions on historical issues in multi-cultural contexts , 2017 .

[98]  E. Lindgren,et al.  Election Pledge Rhetoric: Selling Policy with Words , 2017 .

[99]  Zsuzsanna Ajtony.  Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting , 2017 .

[100]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation , 2017 .

[101]  Kathryn Ann Baselice,et al.  On evil , 2018, The Handbook of Psychoanalytic Holocaust Studies.

[102]  Defining Reality , 2019, Psychological Perspectives on Reality, Consciousness and Paranormal Experience.