A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi

Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi

Argumentation-induced rational issue polarisation

Computational models have shown how polarisation can rise among deliberating agents as they approximate epistemic rationality. This paper provides further support for the thesis that polarisation can rise under condition of epistemic rationality, but it does not depend on limitations that extant models rely on, such as memory restrictions or biased evaluation of other agents’ testimony. Instead, deliberation is modelled through agents’ purposeful introduction of arguments and their rational reactions to introductions of others. This process induces polarisation dynamics on its own. A second result is that the effect size of polarisation dynamics correlates with particular types of argumentative behaviour. Polarisation effects can be soothed when agents take into account the opinions of others as premises, and they are amplified as agents fortify their own beliefs. These results underpin the relevance of argumentation as a factor in social-epistemic processes and indicate that rising issue polarisation is not a reliable indicator of epistemic shortcomings

Inconsistent belief aggregation in diverse and polarised groups

How do opinion diversity and belief polarisation affect epistemic group decision-making, particularly if decisions must be made without delay and on the basis of permissive evidence? In an agent-based model, we track the consistency of group opinions aggregated through sentence-wise majority voting. Simulations on the model reveal that high opinion diversity, but not polarisation, incurs a significant inconsistency risk. These results indicate that epistemic group decisions based on permissive evidence can be particularly difficult for diverse groups. The results also improve our understanding of what can reasonably be expected of expert groups, and where expert advice might have limits

Buying Time with Climate Engineering? An analysis of the buying time framing in favor of climate engineering

Can climate engineering help provide more time for an ambitious mitigation program? And if so, is a buying time deployment of climate engineering morally acceptable? The work at hand means to thoroughly scrutinize this specific argument of the climate engineering discourse – the buying time argument (BT-argument). The point of departure of this research is the notion that climate engineering (CE) is not inherently morally wrong. The guiding question is: Is there a possible buying time deployment of a climate engineering technology absent any general moral constraints? This question will be answered in several steps: First, a deductively valid version of the BT-argument is established.  In particular, this argument implies that deployment of CE is to be finite and should not interfere with mitigation efforts. Containing a placeholder for a specific climate goal and a placeholder denoting a specific CE technology, the argument can only be fully evaluated, if the placeholders are instantiated. By doing so, this thesis aims at providing a comprehensive discussion of two CE technologies, Sulfate Aerosol Injection (SAI) and Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), and sheding some light on the moral aspects of potential CE deployment. The preliminary conclusion states that a finite and strictly purpose bound deployment of SAI might be morally sound, but the boundary conditions for such a deployment must be guaranteed by political efforts. The work at hand also highlights the importance of further research, especially with respect to negative emission technologies.

El papel de las preguntas en la argumentación filosófica. Un análisis dialéctico

La tesis se propone realizar un estudio dialéctico-dinámico de la argumentación filosófica. En el capítulo primero se presentan, de manera comprimida, todas aquellas herramientas dialécticas que se consideran relevantes para estudiar diversas funciones no suasorias, o no eminentemente suasorias, de la argumentación en filosofía, en particular, la función estratégica de las preguntas. El enfoque dialéctico se sirve de técnicas y conceptos de las dialécticas formales, la dialéctica dialógica de Walton y Krabbe y la dialéctica argumental de Hubert Marraud. Se ha tratado, en la medida de lo posible, de presentar ejemplos que ilustren los conceptos y técnicas, a fin de reducir la aridez de una exposición tan compacta: la dialéctica en una nuez. En el capítulo dos se presentan veintiún secuencias dialógicas de argumentación filosófica, tratando de evitar dos defectos comunes: el primero, fragmentos breves, por lo que se han analizado secuencias de mayor extensión que las usuales; y el segundo, la asimilación a un único modelo, por lo que se presentan doce tipos de secuencias dialécticas agrupadas en tres grupos, cada una corresponde a un patrón dialéctico distinto, con lo que se espera mostrar la diversidad de las prácticas argumentativas en filosofía. En el tercer capítulo, se presentan los doce patrones dialécticos como subdiálogos de diálogos complejos, lo que supone explicitar tres características: situación inicial, propósitos de los participantes y fin de la secuencia. Describir patrones dialécticos de esta manera permite, como se verá, diseñar perfiles dialógicos descriptivos. A su vez, se señalan algunos posibles desarrollos de la investigación y sus implicaciones en metafilosofía y en la enseñanza de la filosofía. Por ultimo, se ubica esta investigación dentro del espectro más amplio de las investigaciones en teoría de la argumentación sobre la relación entre preguntas y razones. En síntesis: el examen dialéctico de las secuencias ha permitido comprobar que determinados intercambios argumentativos tienen objetivos estrictamente dialécticos: cambiar la carga de la prueba de presunciones o de compromisos fijos; y, por otro lado, que los ciclos de argumentación y contraargumentación desempeñan, en muchas ocasiones, un uso estratégico y no suasorio.Departamento de Filosofía (Filosofía, Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Teoría e Historia de la Educación, Filosofía Moral, Estética y Teoría de las Artes)Doctorado en Lógica y Filosofía de la Cienci