Quellen
Contents
Quellen#
Seminar WIF 640#
Buch: Douglas Walton: Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge 2008.
Douglas Walton, Ontario, Christopher Reed, Fabrizio Macagno: Argumentation Schemes. * Cambridge University Press, Print publication year: 2008 * Online publication date: June 2012. Online ISBN: 9780511802034, https://flatp20.bib-bvb.de/search?bvnr=BV043923698 (nur aus dem Netz der HAW oder VPN)
Zum Eingrooven, 2022-11-02
Rekonstruktion von Douglas Walton (1995): Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning durch die Software https://www.reasoninglab.com/patterns-of-argument/argumentation-schemes/waltons-argumentation-schemes/
Block 1: Das Umfeld#
(1) In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2020) 28:281–326 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09272-2
Wir brauchen eine Übersicht über die komplette Arumentationswissenschaft: Hier bekommen wir sie.
(2) Jakub Pruś, Andrew Aberdein (Author): Is Every Definition Persuasive? Douglas Walton on Persuasiveness of Definition. https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/7211/5373 (Backlink: Walton-Schwerpunktheft https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/700)
Block 2: Walton#
Alle Referenten zu Walton lesen alle Aufsätze, idealerweise Gruppenarbeit, dann einzelne Themen:
Walton 2008: 13.0_pp_308_346_A_Users_Compendium_of_Schemes.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.010
(3) Douglas Walton: How to Refute an Argument Using Artificial Intelligence. April 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256017340_How_to_Refute_an_Argument_Using_Artificial_Intelligence
insbesondere Vorstellung von Carmenides
(4) Chris Reed, Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno: Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 22:1, 1–22 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888907001051
(5) US2016G1tvWALTON corpus (freely available online at http://corpora.aifdb.org/US2016G1tvWALTON).
kurze Beschreibung: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-020-09519-x.pdf, Anschnitt 2.3.2 The US2016 Corpus
ergänzend:
Douglas Walton: Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press 2013.
Douglas Walton, Marcin Koszowy: Whately on Authority, Deference, Presumption and Burden of Proof. May 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325436400_Whately_on_Authority_Deference_Presumption_and_Burden_of_Proof/download
Block 3: Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA)#
Alle Referenten zu Wagemans lesen alle Aufsätze, dann einzelne Themen:
(6) Wagemans, Jean H.M., “Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments” (2016). OSSA Conference Archive. 106. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/106
(7) Jean H. M. Wagemans: Four Basic Argument Forms. Research in Language, 2019, vol. 17:1 . https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2019-0005 <– Four_basic_argument_forms.pdf –>
(8) Martin Hinton, Jean H. M. Wagemans: Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural Approach. Argumentation (2022) 36:61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09555-1
(9) Jean H.M. Wagemans: Analogy, Similarity, and the Periodic Table of Arguments. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetorica 55 (68) 2018 https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0028
(10) Jacky Visser, John Lawrence, Jean Wagemans, Chris Reed: Revisiting Computational Models of Argument Schemes: Classification, Annotation, Comparison. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-906-5-313
ausführlicher: Jacky Visser, et al.: Annotating Argument Schemes. Argumentation (2021) 35:101–139 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09519-x
(11) Wagemans, J.H.M. (2021). Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP) – Version 4. Published online December 30, 2021. https://www.periodic-table-of-arguments.org/argument-type-identification-procedure .
Block 4: Sonstige#
(12) Daniel Timmermann, Katharina Gelbrich: Können Algorithmen Subsumieren? NJW 1-2/2022, S. 25-30
(13) Douglas Walton: Using argumentation schemes to find motives and intentions of a rational agent. Argument & Computation 10 (2019) 233–275. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-190480
Gordon, Thomas F. and Friederich, Horst and Walton, Douglas (2018). Representing Argumentation Schemes with Constraint Handling Rules (CHR). Argument and Computation, 9(2), 91-119. https://content.iospress.com/download/argument-and-computation/aac039?id=argument-and-computation%2Faac039
inbes. Kap 4. “Validation”
mehr zum Autor: http://www.tfgordon.de/publications/
Weitere Quellen#
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-020-09519-x.pdf, Abschnitt 3.2
Walton, Douglas: Using argumentation schemes to find motives and intentions of a rational agent. (Note: [†] This paper was in the proofreading phase when the author Douglas Walton sadly passed away. The proofreading has been completed by the journal editors.) Keywords: Multiagent systems, evidential reasoning in law, finding intentions, artificial intelligence. DOI: 10.3233/AAC-190480. Journal: Argument & Computation, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 233-275, 2019 https://content.iospress.com/articles/argument-and-computation/aac190480
Walton’s taxonomy of argumentation schemes is operationalised as annotation guidelines on the basis of the Argumentation Schemes book from 2008 (Walton et al. 2008). More specifically, the guidelines consist of Chapter 9 of the book: A User’s Compendium of Schemes (Walton et al. 2008, pp. 308–346), which com- prises an extensive description of 60 main scheme types. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-020-09519-x.pdf
Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen (Ed.): From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild. A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory. 2020. DOI: https://bibaccess.fh-landshut.de:2188/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4. (Up to date overview of worthwhile current theorizing about argumentation. Contributions from a variety of theoretical perspectives. Covering the study of argumentation worldwide, from the United States, Canada and Latin America to Europe and China.)
Tim Clark, Paolo N. Ciccarese, Carole Goble: Micropublications: a Semantic Model for Claims, Evidence, Arguments and Annotations in Biomedical Communications. May 2013. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 5(1) DOI:10.1186/2041-1480-5-28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236834722_Micropublications_a_Semantic_Model_for_Claims_Evidence_Arguments_and_Annotations_in_Biomedical_Communications
Wael Hamdan, Rady Khazem, Ghaida Rebdawi, Madalina Croitoru, Alain Gutierrez, Patrice Buche: On Ontological Expressivity and Modelling Argumentation Schemes Using COGUI. Chapter, October 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12069-0_1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270273236
Chein, Michel: Graph-based knowledge representation: computational foundations of conceptual graphs. Springer London, 2009. https://opac.haw-landshut.de/TouchPoint/perma.do?q=+1035%3D%22BV035458226%22+IN+%5B6%5D&v=fla&l=de
Introduction to the Special Issue. Douglas Walton and his … https://philarchive.org › archive › MACITT-9 PDF von F Macagno · 2022 — Douglas Walton and his Contribution to Argumentation Theory. FABRIZIO MACAGNO. ArgLab, Instituto de Filosofia da Nova, Faculdade de Ciên-. https://philarchive.org/archive/MACITT-9
Björn Ebbinghaus: Decision Making with Argumentation Graphs. Thesis, May 2019. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12515.09760/1.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335061726
Besnard, Philippea; Hunter, Anthonyb: Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: a tutorial. DOI: 10.1080/19462166.2013.869765 . Journal: Argument & Computation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5-30, 2014. https://content.iospress.com/articles/argument-and-computation/869765
Tools#
Wir schauen uns auch Tools an, wie z.B.
https://carneades.github.io/ (beendet 2017)
http://www.argunet.org/ (beendet 2018), mit Nachfolger https://argdown.org/ | http://www.argunet.org/2018/10/26/new-beginning-introducing-argdown/
https://www.mindmup.com/tutorials/argument-visualization.html, https://maps.simoncullen.org/, https://maps.simoncullen.org/basics#h.p_2xqIqGiTIZFK
Kommerziell:
ASPIC+: https://content.iospress.com/articles/argument-and-computation/869766 (2014)
DefLog (2000)
Deepl: Ok, aber mit Vorsicht verwenden#
Klar, Deepl hilft - jedenfalls in Bezug auf Alltags-Englisch. Wir haben es aber mit vielen Fachbegriffen zu tun, die in den Trainings-Korpora von Deepl nicht sehr häufig enthalten sind. Hier können wir uns auf Deepl nicht mehr blind verlassen: Von den Teilnehmern wird erwartet, dass sie sich auch mit zusätzlichen Wörterbüchern und anderen Ressourcen durch den englischen Text kämpfen.
Das Seminar dient insbesondere auch dazu, uns die EN-Terminologie zum Thema Argumentationslogik zu erschließen. Dazu legen wir in Moodle ein gemeinsames Glossar aller relevanten englischen Begriffe an - das man an Ende in Form einer Übersetzungstabelle ggf. auch wieder auf Deeol hochladen kann?
Original: Critics often ask how these schemes can be justified, given that they resisted analysis as deductive or inductive forms of argument of the kind recognized as valid in the dominant 20th-century logic tradition
Deepl DE: Kritiker fragen oft, wie diese Schemata gerechtfertigt werden können, da sie sich einer Analyse als deduktive oder induktive Argumentationsformen der Art, wie sie in der die in der vorherrschenden Logiktradition des 20. Jahrhunderts als gültig anerkannt wurden [ES FEHLT DAS VERB]
Notizen#
because, weil
although, obwohl
Evaluating_Reasoning_in_Natural_Argument.pdf:
Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) set out in Hinton (2021). Hinton, M. 2021. Evaluating the Language of Argument. Cham: Springer. https://books.google.de/books?id=iR8MEAAAQBAJ https://opac.haw-landshut.de/TouchPoint/perma.do?q=+1035=”BV047047705”+IN+[6]&v=fla&l=de
These tools, in practice, can be used to manually annotate online content, as is currently done in MMGA (Brave 2019; Internet Society Chapitre Du Benin n.d.). MMGA is a blockchain-based annotation platform (with hundreds of registrants) in which screened and trained expert and/or critical thinking readers can annotate high-impact news sites such as NU.nl and AD.nl, two of the ‘Big Four’ Dutch online news platforms. These tools are also currently explored for their prospects to design KRINO, a glass-box AI engine that can assist humans in a semi-automated process of argument evaluation. KRINO is not a fully-automated engine, but rather aids human agents in analyzing written text and disentangling critical aspects of the underlying argument structure.
Informal Argument Semantics (IAS) developed and described at length in Hinton (2021)
Why_missing_premises_can_be_missed_Evaluating_arguments_by_deter.pdf
Evaluating_Reasoning_in_Natural_Argument.pdf
There are, however, significant differences between the widely used critical questions and our procedural questions. The most important of these is standardisa- tion: there is no regular pattern to either the form or the content of the questions accompanying the many schemes listed in the work Argumentation Schemes (Walton et al. 2008).
Konferenzen und Gruppen#
Overview of Touché 2021: Argument Retrieval. Extended Abstract. 2021-bondarenkoetal-ecir21.pdf . https://www.inf.uni-hamburg.de/en/inst/ab/lt/publications/2021-bondarenkoetal-ecir21.pdf
ENDE