David M. Godden

Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution

In this paper we show how dialogue-based theories of argumentation can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution. Specifically we consider the role of persuasion in online dispute resolution by showing how persuasion dialogues can be functionally embedded in negotiation dialogues, and how negotiation dialogues can shift to persuasion dialogues. We conclude with some remarks on how persuasion dialogues might be modelled is such a way as to allow them to be implemented in a mechanical or computerized system of dialogue or dialogue management.

Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument

In 1996, Argumentation and Advocacy published a groundbreaking issue devoted to visual argument. It was the first collection of essays on the subject. Twenty years later, we consider some of the doubts about the possibility of visual argument that were discussed in that first issue. We argue that these doubts have been answered by the last 20 years of research on visual argument, and we look at some of the key theoretical and applied issues that characterize this burgeoning subfield in the study of argument.

The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion

This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.

On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability

All reasoning, including the reasoning used in argument, has to start from somewhere. Although it may be possible, in principle, to off er support for every claim, in any particular case this strategy cannot be used without hopeless regress. Th us, not every claim used in reasoning can owe its acceptability to some set of reasons off ered in its support. Instead, in the context of any given argument or piece of reasoning, some claims must be accepted—if only as starting places—on some other basis. Th ese claims can be called the basic premises of an argument.1 Dialogic approaches to argumentation typically take as the starting place of argumentation the discussants’ shared commitments. Alternately, rhetorical approaches standardly take as the starting place of argumentation the audience’s existing commitment set or, more broadly, whatever an audience is willing to accept. With each approach the idea seems to be that the eff ectiveness of persuasion depends on the commitment of the audience to the starting points of argumentation. In a dialogic context, if there are no points of agreement between a proponent and opponent, there is nothing for arguers to “take hold of ” when designing and deploying their arguments and no space in which argumentation can take place. In reasoning more generally, if no claims are initially admitted, there is nothing from On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability

Deductivism as an Interpretive Strategy: A Reply to Groarke's Recent Defense of Reconstructive Deductivism

Deductivism has been presented variously as an evaluative thesis and as an interpretive one. I argue that deductivism fails as a universal evaluative thesis, and that its value as an interpretive thesis must be supported on other grounds. As a reconstructive strategy, deductivism is justified only on the grounds that an arguer is, or ought to be, aiming at the deductive standard of evidence. As such, the reconstruction of an argument as deductive must be supported by contextual and situational factors including facts about the arguer. Further, the plausibility of deductivism as a normative thesis is not tied to its plausibility as a descriptive or interpretive thesis.

Psychologism in the Logic of John Stuart Mill: Mill on the Subject Matter and Foundations of Ratiocinative Logic

This paper considers the question of whether Mills account of the nature and justificatory foundations of deductive logic is psychologistic. Logical psychologism asserts the dependency of logic on psychology. Frequently, this dependency arises as a result of a metaphysical thesis asserting the psychological nature of the subject matter of logic. A study of Mills System of Logic and his Examination reveals that Mill held an equivocal view of the subject matter of logic, sometimes treating it as a set of psychological processes and at other times as the objects of those processes. The consequences of each of these views upon the justificatory foundations of logic are explored. The paper concludes that, despite his providing logic with a prescriptive function, and despite his avoidance of conceptualism, Mills theory fails to provide deductive logic with a justificatory foundation that is independent of psychology.

Psychologism and the Development of Russell's Account of Propositions

This article examines the development of Russells treatment of propositions, in relation to the topic of psychologism. In the first section, we outline the concept of psychologism, and show how it can arise in relation to theories of the nature of propositions. Following this, we note the anti-psychologistic elements of Russells thought dating back to his idealist roots. From there, we sketch the development of Russells theory of the proposition through a number of its key transitions. We show that Russell, in responding to a variety of different problems relating to the proposition, chose to resolve these problems in ways that continually made concessions to psychologism.

A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency (RSA). Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: (1) change in the commitment to the reason, (2) the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, (3) one’s prior commitment to the claim, and (4) the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual (in)dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but also show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align.

Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation

The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I conclude (section 4) by suggesting that the resolution to the dispute between Gilbert and his objectors hinges on the outcome of several foundational theoretical questions identified over the course of the paper.

The impact of argumentation on artificial intelligence

The research of the Amsterdam School has spread outward across the discipline of argumentation studies like a new day, awakening us to new vistas, casting light on new opportunities, and offering a fresh look at our familiar surroundings. When it first appeared, the pragma-dialectical approach challenged so many existing assumptions that is seemed almost radical, and entirely disrupted the established view. Yet over the years this approach has proved so remarkably effective that many of its central tenets have begun to be widely recognized and accepted. These tenets are even becoming a part of science, as they are increasingly adopted into the standard model of argument used in computing. Along with Rob Grootendorst, Frans van Eemeren was the founding father of the Amsterdam School, and of the pragma-dialectical approach to the study of argumentation. This new approach found its inspiration in the critical rationalism of Popper (1972, 1974), Barth and Krabbe’s (1982) theory of formal dialectic, and the speech act theory of Austin (1962), Searle (1969), and Grice (1975) (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 51). Argumentation, as a growing interdisciplinary field of research, was conducted mainly in logic, philosophy, and communication studies in the beginning. It has now branched and become truly interdisciplinary as it has affected more and more fields, like cognitive science, where models of rational thinking are an essential part of the research program. At some point, argumentation methods and findings began to be imported into computing, especially in the area called artificial intelligence, or AI. Since that time, other researchers in argumentation began to use tools developed in AI. In this chapter, we explore the development and importance of this connection between argumentation and artificial intelligence. Specifically, we show that the influence of argumentation on AI has occurred within a framework that is consistent with the basic approach of Pragma-Dialectics. While the pragma-dialectical approach is typically conceived