Marcin Koszowy

Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systems

In this paper we show that an essential aspect of solving the problem of uncritical acceptance of expert opinions that is at the root of the ad verecundiam fallacy is the need to disentangle argument from expert opinion from another kind of appeal to authority. Formal and computational argumentation systems enable us to analyze the fault in which an error has occurred by virtue of a failure to meet one or more of the requirements of the argumentation scheme from argument from expert opinion. We present a method for enhancing this capability by showing how arguments from expert opinion are related to, but different from, arguments from deontic authority.

Profiles of Dialogue for Repairing Faults in Arguments from Expert Opinion

Using the profiles of dialogue method we identify a species of ad verecundiam fallacy that works by forestalling of questioning in arguments from expert opinion. A profile of dialogue is a graph structure used to model a sequence of speech acts surrounding both the putting forward of an argument and the response to it at the next moves in a dialogue. The method is applied to a case of cross-examining a software engineer in a legal deposition in a case of intellectual property litigation.

Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies

Abstract Pragmatics and dialectics are two disciplines which have been amongst the first and most important partners for argument studies in the exploration of the complex realm of communication. Treating argumentation as a construct consisting of premises and conclusion allows for investigating some interesting properties of the phenomenon of reasoning, but does not capture a variety of aspects related to the usage of natural language and dialogical context in which real-life argumentation is typically embedded. This special issue explores some of the fascinating research questions which emerge when we move beyond logic into the territory of the pragmatics and dialectics of argument.

From text to scheme: Problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion

We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.

Erratum to: Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systems

It is interesting to note that some of the classic cases of argument from authority combine argument from expert opinion with argument from administrative authority. It is also interesting to see how CAS can model cases of evidential reasoning in law where the argument from expert opinion type of authority can conflict with the argument from administrative authority. In Fig. 4, an argument from expert opinion is used as evidence to support the proposition that Smith is guilty of murder, the ultimate claim to be proved by the prosecution (Fig. 4). Let’s assume that this argument fits the requirements for the scheme for argument from expert opinion as indicated by the notation ?ex in the argument diagram. Here we have simplified the argument for purposes of illustration by omitting the implicit premises that the matching of the DNA samples shows that Smith was at the crime scene and that this evidence, taken along with the other elements of the crime of murder in a given jurisdiction, provides an argument that supports the claim that Smith is guilty of murder. But let’s look at the counter-argument at the bottom of the diagram. Let’s say that this argument is a legitimate instance of the scheme for the administrative argument from authority, as indicated by the notation ?ad in the argument node. The minus sign in the er node indicates that this whole line of argument is a counter-argument attacking the prior argument from expert opinion. In fact, it is shown as an undercutter of that argument, as indicated by the argument from administrative authority being directed to the argument node a1. In CAS, an undercutting argument represents the kind of critical question classified as an exception. In this instance, what it means is that an expert opinion argument based on DNA evidence is generally accepted as a persuasive form of argument in the courts, but a defeasible one that can be refuted if an exception to the general rule is found. In this instance, once the law is stated, along with a citation indicating its source, the undercutting argument -er (exception to a rule) defeats the The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s00146-016-0666-3.