Argumentation Schemes

Argumentation schemes capture stereotypical patterns of argument. They describe classes of argument where some reasoning step allows a particular conclusion to be drawn given a suitable set of premises. We're mostly interested in presumptive arguments, where the conclusion generally applies, but not always; and a presumptive argument scheme describes exceptions as well as premises and conclusions.

For our purposes, we draw on ...

Argument from Position to Know

A claim made by some person or organization may be considered as an Argument from Position to Know. This scheme describes a Position to Have Knowledge premise and a Lack of Reliability exception. These cover the cases where a claim might be ill-informed, biased, or even malicious.

Argument from Expert Opinion

This is broadly similar to Argument from Position to Know, but considers expert opinion that needs to be backed up by relevant evidence and credentials. To that end, it includes Expertise Backup Evidence and Field Expertise premises. It can be attacked with the same Lack of Reliability exception, or with an Expertise Inconsistency exception if the expert's opinion differs from others in the same field.

Argument from Cause to Effect

This scheme covers plausible (abductive) reasoning from cause to effect. It includes a Causal Description premise stating that the link is indeed causal.

Argument from Evidence to Hypothesis

Argument from Evidence to Hypothesis says the if the hypothesis were true, the evidence would be observable; so if the evidence is observed, then the hypothesis is plausibly true. This is broadly similar to Argument from Cause to Effect, but there doesn't have to be a causal link, and the reasoning is inductive rather than abductive.

Argument from Sign

Argument from Sign says the premise is a sign that generally indicates the conclusion. This is a weaker version of both Argument from Cause to Effect and Argument from Evidence to Hypothesis. It claims correlation without causation, and the premise is generally rather than necessarily associated with the conclusion. A Sign From Other Events exception attacks the argument by suggesting an alternative reason for the sign.

Falsification of Hypothesis

This scheme says the if the hypothesis were true, then some piece of evidence would be observable; so if the evidence is not observed, then the hypothesis is false.

Argument from Consequences

Walton's Argument from Consequences scheme says that a particular course of action results in positive consequences or avoids negative ones. AIF splits this scheme into two: Argument from Positive Consequences and Argument from Negative Consequences. Both are open to an Opposite Consequences exception arguing that the benefits (or costs) are outweighed by other considerations.

Argument from Established Rule

This scheme suggests that given the prevailing circumstances as a premise, we can conclude that some actor must take a particular course of action (or face a penalty).

Applying Schemes

Schemes can either be applied in various ways:

  1. When constructing an Argumentation Theory from an argument map (e.g. establishing preferences).
  2. In evaluating the "strength" of arguments through assessing the set of schemes that apply in a stable extension.
  3. In conducting meta-arguments between stable extensions that support different hypotheses.
  4. In suggesting lines of attack on a stable extension to support dialogue.

We'll explore these in relation to the ACH method.

...

Technical details

This document includes RDFa mark-up that generates a subset of the AIF ontology covering these schemes.

...