Domain-specific reasoning for method engineering based on Toulmin's argumentation theory

Methods describe and embody a broad range of relevant knowledge of enterprises. Usually they have to account for requirements stated by a multitude of various stakeholders. These are typically those that are in charge of business related actions and those that are in charge to support such actions with an IT-Infrastructure. The statement of requirements as well as the validation of methods and in particular process models with respect to those requirements relies drastically on natural language. Natural language seems to be a substantial component to explain and to give an understanding about process models or certain aspects of it. This fact requires closing the gap between the natural language and the respective modelling language. This paper proposes argumentative method engineering for purposefully depicting design decisions and convictions for method engineering through arguments. The approach is derived from Toulmin’s Argumentation Model and explicates the process of negotiating with various stakeholders. So, a model, depicting a method, specified by means of argumentative method engineering, not just includes the claims about a certain domain, it further justifies these claims by referring to already established knowledge. While it can’t be ensured that certain requirements are considered in future project, if the reasons for design decisions of method engineering are transcribed in natural language text, but the semi- formalising of arguments regarding these methods allows such an assurance. So the argumentative approach enables the sophisticated management and reuse of knowledge during the development and extension of methods. The approach is evaluated using a case study, in which a software development method was outsourced to contractors

Domain-specific reasoning for method engineering based on Toulmin's argumentation theory

Methods describe and embody a broad range of relevant knowledge of enterprises. Usually they have to account for requirements stated by a multitude of various stakeholders. These are typically those that are in charge of business related actions and those that are in charge to support such actions with an IT-Infrastructure. The statement of requirements as well as the validation of methods and in particular process models with respect to those requirements relies drastically on natural language. Natural language seems to be a substantial component to explain and to give an understanding about process models or certain aspects of it. This fact requires closing the gap between the natural language and the respective modelling language. This paper proposes argumentative method engineering for purposefully depicting design decisions and convictions for method engineering through arguments. The approach is derived from Toulmin’s Argumentation Model and explicates the process of negotiating with various stakeholders. So, a model, depicting a method, specified by means of argumentative method engineering, not just includes the claims about a certain domain, it further justifies these claims by referring to already established knowledge. While it can’t be ensured that certain requirements are considered in future project, if the reasons for design decisions of method engineering are transcribed in natural language text, but the semi- formalising of arguments regarding these methods allows such an assurance. So the argumentative approach enables the sophisticated management and reuse of knowledge during the development and extension of methods. The approach is evaluated using a case study, in which a software development method was outsourced to contractors

Legal knowledge-based systems: new directions in system design

This thesis examines and critiques the concept of 'legal knowledge-based’ systems. Work on legal knowledge-based systems is dominated by work in 'artificial intelligence and law’. It seeks to automate the application of law and to automate the solution of legal problems. Automation however, has proved elusive. In contrast to such automation, this thesis proposes the creation of legal knowledge-based systems based on the concept of augmentation of legal work. Focusing on systems that augment legal work opens new possibilities for system creation and use. To inform how systems might augment legal work, this thesis examines philosophy, psychology and legal theory for information they provide on how processes of legal reasoning operate. It is argued that, in contrast to conceptions of law adopted in artificial intelligence and law, 'sensemaking' provides a useful perspective with which to create systems. It is argued that visualisation, and particularly diagrams, are an important and under considered element of reasoning and that producing systems that support diagramming of processes of legal reasoning would provide useful support for legal work. This thesis reviews techniques for diagramming aspects of sensemaking. In particular this thesis examines standard methods for diagramming arguments and methods for diagramming reasoning. These techniques are applied in the diagramming of legal judgments. A review is conducted of systems that have been constructed to support the construction of diagrams of argument and reasoning. Drawing upon these examinations, this thesis highlights the necessity of appropriate representations for supporting reasoning. The literature examining diagramming for reasoning support provides little discussion of appropriate representations. This thesis examines theories of representation for insight they can provide into the design of appropriate representations. It is concluded that while the theories of representation that are examined do not determine what amounts to a good representation, guidelines for the design and choice of representations can be distilled. These guidelines cannot map the class of legal knowledge-based systems that augment legal sensemaking, they can however, be used to explore this class and to inform construction of systems

Towards Sound Forensic Arguments: Structured Argumentation Applied to Digital Forensics Practice

Digital forensic practitioners are increasingly facing examinations which are both complex in nature and structure. Throughout this process, during the examination and analysis phases, the practitioner is constantly drawing logical inferences which will be reflected in the reporting of results. Therefore, it is important to expose how all the elements of an investigation fit together to allow review and scrutiny, and to support associated parties to understand the components within it. This paper proposes the use of ‘Structured Argumentation’ as a valuable and flexible ingredient of the practitioners’ thinking toolbox. It explores this approach using three case examples which allow discussion of the benefits and application of structured argumentation to real world contexts. We argue that, despite requiring a short learning curve, structured argumentation is a practical method which promotes accessibility of findings facilitating communication between technical and legal parties, peer review, logical reconstruction, jury interpretation, and error detection

Meta-level argumentation framework for representing and reasoning about disagreement

The contribution of this thesis is to the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically to the sub-field called knowledge engineering. Knowledge engineering involves the computer representation and use of the knowledge and opinions of human experts.In real world controversies, disagreements can be treated as opportunities for exploring the beliefs and reasoning of experts via a process called argumentation. The central claim of this thesis is that a formal computer-based framework for argumentation is a useful solution to the problem of representing and reasoning with multiple conflicting viewpoints.The problem which this thesis addresses is how to represent arguments in domains in which there is controversy and disagreement between many relevant points of view. The reason that this is a problem is that most knowledge based systems are founded in logics, such as first order predicate logic, in which inconsistencies must be eliminated from a theory in order for meaningful inference to be possible from it.I argue that it is possible to devise an argumentation framework by describing one (FORA : Framework for Opposition and Reasoning about Arguments). FORA contains a language for representing the views of multiple experts who disagree or have differing opinions. FORA also contains a suite of software tools which can facilitate debate, exploration of multiple viewpoints, and construction and revision of knowledge bases which are challenged by opposing opinions or evidence.A fundamental part of this thesis is the claim that arguments are meta-level structures which describe the relationships between statements contained in knowledge bases. It is important to make a clear distinction between representations in knowledge bases (the object-level) and representations of the arguments implicit in knowledge bases (the meta-level). FORA has been developed to make this distinction clear and its main benefit is that the argument representations are independent of the object-level representation language. This is useful because it facilitates integration of arguments from multiple sources using different representation languages, and because it enables knowledge engineering decisions to be made about how to structure arguments and chains of reasoning, independently of object-level representation decisions.I argue that abstract argument representations are useful because they can facilitate a variety of knowledge engineering tasks. These include knowledge acquisition; automatic abstraction from existing formal knowledge bases; and construction, rerepresentation, evaluation and criticism of object-level knowledge bases. Examples of software tools contained within FORA are used to illustrate these uses of argumentation structures. The utility of a meta-level framework for argumentation, and FORA in particular, is demonstrated in terms of an important real world controversy concerning the health risks of a group of toxic compounds called aflatoxins

Investigating Maine Secondary Science Teachers Conceptualization of Scientific Argumentation

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) aims to reform science education for grades K-12 with a central focus on students becoming doers of science as opposed to just being knowers of facts. This historical shift in standards across the United States asks for teaching science content paired with eight Science and Engineering Practices. One of the eight Science and Engineering Practices is Engaging in Argument from Evidence, which is using empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to make sense of scientific phenomena.This study examined how the practice of Engaging in Argument from Evidence is conceptualized by Maine secondary science teachers, and how these teachers approached uncertainty when students are engaging in argumentation practice. The state of Maine officially adopted the NGSS in April 2019, making the 2019-2020 academic school year the first time the standards would be integrated into the public school’s secondary science classrooms. Therefore, this is a critical time to understand how secondary school teachers in Maine make sense of the scientific practices and make suggestions for future professional learning of teachers. In this study, a statewide survey was distributed to Maine secondary science teachers that asked them a series of questions about their conceptualization and implementations of the practice Engaging in Argument from Evidence. Out of the 37 survey respondents, interviews were then conducted with 7 selected participants, who were asked to elaborate on their survey answers and provide examples of using argumentation practice in their classroom. Results showed teachers paid attention to some aspects of the practice Engaging in Argumentation from Evidence from the participants more than others. The aspects that are frequently highlighted by these teachers included Making Sense of Data and Communicating Arguments when their students where actively engaging in the practice. Other characterizations included Use of Multiple Scientific Practices, Integrating Scientific Reasoning, Use of Prior Knowledge and Use of Reliable Resources. In the survey, teachers were asked if they integrated topics they considered to be uncertain, and if they did, if they allowed for competing claims when students were arguing these topics. When interview participants were asked about their integration of uncertainty when practicing scientific argumentation, there were three different interpretations of how their type of topics were integrated. These variations of uncertainty included Measurement Uncertainty, Students Lack of Prior Knowledge and Controversial Issues (uncertain topics). Using the results, suggestions could be made on how teachers can integrate this practice in their classrooms to cohesively use. Future research can build upon how teachers implement uncertainty in their classroom by promoting opportunities for teachers to learn and actively engage with the such topics through the practice of Engaging in Argument from Evidence

Methodology on Trial: The Rhetorical Function of Toulminian Warrants in Expert Testimony

While providing expert testimony in jury trials, scientists face an array of conflicting legal requirements. Expert witnesses must demonstrate the soundness of their scientific methodology, but they must do so with little or no reference to the literature of their field. They must explain advanced scientific concepts while phrasing their explanations as a direct response to a lawyer\u27s question. This project examines the rhetorical strategies expert witnesses utilize as they negotiate these conflicting requirements. Previous studies have examined persuasive discourse created for and by members of an scientific academic discipline, but my study examines how scientists defend their knowledge making practices to public audiences in a highly pressurized, overtly agnostic setting. My study also features a distinctive emphasis on the portions of expert testimony in which expert witnesses describe and defend the scientific methodologies that under-gird the evidence they present to the jury. To analyze these statements, I combine a Toulminian coding system with one developed to analyze assertions of expertise made in non-academic contexts. I identify four distinct challenges expert witnesses face. I then trace the origins of these challenges to differences in the processes through which lawyers and scientists are professionalized. I elucidate the implications these challenges have for our justice system, for the scientific community, and for technical communication scholars

Disjunctive argumentation semantics (DAS) for reasoning over distributed uncertain knowledge.

by Benson, Ng Hin Kwong.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1998.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-117).Abstract also in Chinese.Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.9Chapter 1.1 --- Our approach --- p.11Chapter 1.2 --- Organization of the thesis --- p.12Chapter 2 --- Logic Programming --- p.13Chapter 2.1 --- Logic programming in Horn clauses --- p.14Chapter 2.1.1 --- Problem with incomplete information --- p.15Chapter 2.1.2 --- Problem with inconsistent information --- p.15Chapter 2.1.3 --- Problem with indefinite information --- p.16Chapter 2.2 --- Logic programming in non-Horn clauses --- p.16Chapter 2.2.1 --- Reasoning under incomplete information --- p.17Chapter 2.2.2 --- Reasoning under inconsistent information --- p.17Chapter 2.2.3 --- Reasoning under indefinite information --- p.20Chapter 2.3 --- "Coexistence of incomplete, inconsistent and indefinite information" --- p.21Chapter 2.4 --- Stable semantics --- p.22Chapter 2.5 --- Well-founded semantics --- p.23Chapter 2.6 --- Chapter summary --- p.25Chapter 3 --- Argumentation --- p.26Chapter 3.1 --- Toulmin's informal argumentation model --- p.27Chapter 3.2 --- Rescher's formal argumentation model --- p.28Chapter 3.3 --- Argumentation in AI research --- p.30Chapter 3.3.1 --- Poole's Logical Framework for Default Reasoning --- p.30Chapter 3.3.2 --- Inheritance Reasoning Framework of Touretzky et. al --- p.31Chapter 3.3.3 --- Pollock's Theory of Defeasible Reasoning --- p.32Chapter 3.3.4 --- Dung's Abstract Argumentation Framework --- p.33Chapter 3.3.5 --- Lin and Shoham's Argument System --- p.35Chapter 3.3.6 --- Vreeswijk's Abstract Argumentation --- p.35Chapter 3.3.7 --- Kowalski and Toni's Uniform Argumentation --- p.36Chapter 3.3.8 --- John Fox's Qualitative Argumentation --- p.37Chapter 3.3.9 --- Thomas Gordon's Pleading Games --- p.38Chapter 3.3.10 --- Chris Reed's Persuasive Dialogue --- p.39Chapter 3.3.11 --- Ronald Loui's Argument Game --- p.39Chapter 3.3.12 --- "Verheij's Reason-Based, Logics and CumulA" --- p.40Chapter 3.3.13 --- Prakken's Defeasible Argumentation --- p.40Chapter 3.3.14 --- Summary of existing frameworks --- p.41Chapter 3.4 --- Chapter summary --- p.42Chapter 4 --- Disjunctive Argumentation Semantics I --- p.46Chapter 4.1 --- Background --- p.47Chapter 4.2 --- Definition --- p.48Chapter 4.3 --- Conflicts within a KBS --- p.52Chapter 4.4 --- Conflicts between KBSs --- p.54Chapter 4.4.1 --- Credulous View --- p.56Chapter 4.4.2 --- Skeptical View --- p.57Chapter 4.4.3 --- Generalized Skeptical View --- p.58Chapter 4.5 --- Semantics --- p.60Chapter 4.6 --- Dialectical proof theory --- p.61Chapter 4.7 --- Relation to existing framework --- p.61Chapter 4.8 --- Issue on paraconsistency --- p.63Chapter 4.9 --- An illustrative example --- p.63Chapter 4.10 --- Chapter summary --- p.65Chapter 5 --- Disjunctive Argumentation Semantics II --- p.67Chapter 5.1 --- Background --- p.68Chapter 5.2 --- Definition --- p.70Chapter 5.2.1 --- Rules --- p.70Chapter 5.2.2 --- Splits --- p.71Chapter 5.3 --- Conflicts --- p.74Chapter 5.3.1 --- Undercut conflicts --- p.75Chapter 5.3.2 --- Rebuttal conflicts --- p.76Chapter 5.3.3 --- Thinning conflicts --- p.78Chapter 5.4 --- Semantics --- p.80Chapter 5.5 --- Relation to existing frameworks --- p.81Chapter 5.6 --- Issue on paraconsistency --- p.82Chapter 5.7 --- An illustrative example --- p.83Chapter 5.8 --- Chapter summary --- p.85Chapter 6 --- Evaluation --- p.86Chapter 6.1 --- Introduction --- p.86Chapter 6.2 --- Methodology --- p.87Chapter 6.3 --- DAS I --- p.88Chapter 6.3.1 --- Inoue's Benchmark problems --- p.88Chapter 6.3.2 --- Sherlock Holmes' problems --- p.96Chapter 6.4 --- DAS II --- p.100Chapter 6.4.1 --- Inoue's benchmark problems --- p.100Chapter 6.4.2 --- Sherlock Holmes' problem --- p.103Chapter 6.5 --- Analysis --- p.103Chapter 6.5.1 --- Possible extension --- p.104Chapter 6.6 --- Chapter summary --- p.106Chapter 7 --- Conclusion --- p.108Chapter 7.0.1 --- Possible extension of the present work --- p.109Bibliography --- p.117Chapter A --- First Oreder Logic (FOL) --- p.118Chapter B --- DAS-I Proof --- p.121Chapter B.1 --- Monotone proof --- p.121Chapter B.2 --- Soundness proof --- p.122Chapter B.3 --- Completeness proof --- p.123Chapter C --- Sherlock Holmes' Silver Blaze Excerpts --- p.125Chapter C.1 --- Double life --- p.125Chapter C.2 --- Poison stable boy --- p.12

DON\u27T GET TESTY ABOUT IT: CAN TEACHING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IMPROVE ACT SCORES?

Tests are an inevitable component of the educational process and the pressure, for teachers and students alike, can be tremendous. This study was designed to investigate and compare the effectiveness of two different strategies intended to assist students in the preparation for the ACT college entrance exam. One strategy was a continuation of the test preparation strategy that had been in place for several years and the other was a result of research about the type of thinking required to perform well on the ACT exam. Students in the comparison group prepared for the ACT exam by reviewing the types of problems found on the ACT Science test and practicing them repeatedly. The experimental group was taught critical thinking skills through the implementation of activities based upon Toulmin’s argument pattern. Students were pre/post tested on a practice ACT exam and on an essay test designed to measure critical thinking skills. Additionally, students completed a questionnaire designed to elicit confidence levels both before and after taking the ACT in order to determine whether using an untested preparation strategy would have a negative effect on student test scores. While both groups showed gains on the ACT exam from the pre-test, neither group performed better than the other. Possible explanations for this result include loss of instructional time as a result of inclement weather and student apathy for the pre-test. Although students in the experimental group voiced concern and dismay with the preparation strategy of learning critical thinking skills, it did not diminish self-reported confidence and did not appear to have a negative impact on the resulting ACT scores on the Science test. Ideas for making improvements in the study and for areas of future research are also discussed

Tamsayıların Anlaşılmasında Öğretmenin İmgelemeyi Desteklemedeki Rolü

This paper presents the results of a design experiment conducted in a 7th grade mathematics classroom aimed at improving students’ understanding of integer concepts and operations. The study particularly focuses on an expert teacher’s role in helping students develop meaningful imagery which students can use as a foundation to fold back and rely on as they engage in further mathematical activities. Toulmin’s model of argumentation is used as an analytical tool to document when an image becomes taken-as-shared by the classroom community. The results suggest that the practices of the teacher played an important role in students’ development of various images in understanding and solving integer problems meaningfully as well as communicating their ideas effectively.Bu çalışma, yedinci sınıf matematik öğrencilerinin tamsayı kavramı ve işlemlerini daha iyi anlayabilmeleri için yapılan bir araştırmanın sonuçlarını sunmaktadır. Çalışmada özellikle uzman bir öğretmenin öğrencilerin yeni matematiksel kavramları anlamalarında geriye dönük olarak kullanabilecekleri mantıklı imgelemeyi geliştirmelerindeki rolü araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada Toulmin tartışma modeli öğrencilerin oluşturdukları imgelerin tüm sınıf tarafından kabul edilip ortak olarak kullanılıp kullanılmadığını analiz etmek amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğretmenin kullanmış olduğu yöntemlerin öğrencilerin tamsayı problemlerini anlaması ve doğru çözmesinde olduğu kadar, fikirlerini iletmede de etkili olan imgelemelerin gelişiminde önemli bir rol oynadığını göstermişti