A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design

The persuasiveness of an argument depends on the values promoted and demoted by the position defended. This idea, inspired by Perelman’s work on argumentation, has become a prominent theme in artificial intelligence research on argumentation since the work by Hafner and Berman on teleological reasoning in the law, and was further developed by Bench-Capon in his value-based argumentation frameworks. One theme in the study of value-guided argumentation is the comparison of values. Formal models involving value comparison typically use either qualitative or quantitative primitives. In this paper, techniques connecting qualitative and quantitative primitives recently developed for evidential argumentation are applied to value-guided argumentation. By developing the theoretical understanding of intelligent systems guided by embedded values, the paper is a step towards ethical systems design, much needed in these days of ever more pervasive AI techniques. Keywords Argumentation Ethical systems Teleological reasoning Value

Reasoning with inconsistent knowledge using the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation

Structured argumentation involves drawing inferences from knowledge in order to construct arguments and counterarguments. Since knowledge can be uncertain, we can use a probabilistic approach to representing and reasoning with the knowledge. Individual arguments can be constructed from the knowledge, with the belief in each argument determined just from the belief in the formulae appearing in the argument. However, if the original knowledgebase is inconsistent, this does not take into account the counterarguments that can be constructed. We therefore need a wider perspective that revises the belief in individual arguments in order to take into account the counterarguments. To address this need, we present a framework for probabilistic argumentation that uses relaxation methods to give a coherent view on the knowledge, and thereby revises the belief in the arguments that are generated from the knowledge

Proof with and without probabilities

Evidential reasoning is hard, and errors can lead to miscarriages of justice with serious consequences. Analytic methods for the correct handling of evidence come in different styles, typically focusing on one of three tools: arguments, scenarios or probabilities. Recent research used Bayesian networks for connecting arguments, scenarios, and probabilities. Well-known issues with Bayesian networks were encountered: More numbers are needed than are available, and there is a risk of misinterpretation of the graph underlying the Bayesian network, for instance as a causal model. The formalism presented here models presumptive arguments about coherent hypotheses that are compared in terms of their strength. No choice is needed between qualitative or quantitative analytic styles, since the formalism can be interpreted with and without numbers. The formalism is applied to key concepts in argumentative, scenario and probabilistic analyses of evidential reasoning, and is illustrated with a fictional crime investigation example based on Alfred Hitchcock’s film ‘To Catch A Thief’. Keywords Evidential reasoning Argumentation Scenarios Probabilistic reasoning Bayesian networks Forensic scienc

Syntactic Reasoning with Conditional Probabilities in Deductive Argumentation

Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability statements. Furthermore, evidence can conflict, in particular when coming from multiple studies. Whilst it is natural to make sense of such evidence using arguments, there is a lack of a systematic formalism for representing and reasoning with conditional probability statements in computational argumentation. We address this shortcoming by providing a formalization of conditional probabilistic argumentation based on probabilistic conditional logic. We provide a semantics and a collection of comprehensible inference rules that give different insights into evidence. We show how arguments constructed from proofs and attacks between them can be analyzed as arguments graphs using dialectical semantics and via the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. Our approach allows for a transparent and systematic way of handling uncertainty that often arises in evidence

Syntactic reasoning with conditional probabilities in deductive argumentation

Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability statements. Furthermore, evidence can conflict, in particular when coming from multiple studies. Whilst it is natural to make sense of such evidence using arguments, there is a lack of a systematic formalism for representing and reasoning with conditional probability statements in computational argumentation. We address this shortcoming by providing a formalization of conditional probabilistic argumentation based on probabilistic conditional logic. We provide a semantics and a collection of comprehensible inference rules that give different insights into evidence. We show how arguments constructed from proofs and attacks between them can be analyzed as arguments graphs using dialectical semantics and via the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. Our approach allows for a transparent and systematic way of handling uncertainty that often arises in evidence

A Scientific Metaphysical Naturalisation of Information: with a indication-based semantic theory of information and an informationist statement of physicalism.

The objective of this thesis is to present a naturalised metaphysics of information, or to naturalise information, by way of deploying a scientific metaphysics according to which contingency is privileged and a-priori conceptual analysis is excluded (or at least greatly diminished) in favour of contingent and defeasible metaphysics. The ontology of information is established according to the premises and mandate of the scientific metaphysics by inference to the best explanation, and in accordance with the idea that the primacy of physics constraint accommodates defeasibility of theorising in physics. This metametaphysical approach is used to establish a field ontology as a basis for an informational structural realism. This is in turn, in combination with information theory and specifically mathematical and algorithmic theories of information, becomes the foundation of what will be called a source ontology, according to which the world is the totality of information sources. Information sources are to be understood as causally induced configurations of structure that are, or else reduce to and/or supervene upon, bounded (including distributed and non-contiguous) regions of the heterogeneous quantum field (all quantum fields combined) and fluctuating vacuum, all in accordance with the above-mentioned quantum field-ontic informational structural realism (FOSIR.) Arguments are presented for realism, physicalism, and reductionism about information on the basis of the stated contingent scientific metaphysics. In terms of philosophical argumentation, realism about information is argued for primarily by way of an indispensability argument that defers to the practice of scientists and regards concepts of information as just as indispensable in their theories as contingent representations of structure. Physicalism and reductionism about information are adduced by way of the identity thesis that identifies the substance of the structure of ontic structural realism as identical to selections of structure existing in re to combined heterogeneous quantum fields, and to the total heterogeneous quantum field comprised of all such fields. Adjunctly, an informational statement of physicalism is arrived at, and a theory of semantic information is proposed, according to which information is intrinsically semantic and alethically neutral

The theory and pedagody of semantic inconsistency in critical reasoning

One aspect of critical reasoning is the analysis and appraisal of claims and arguments. A typical problem, when analysing and appraising arguments, is inconsistent statements. Although several inconsistencies may have deleterious effects on rationality and action, not all of them do. As educators, we also have an obligation to teach this evaluation in a way that does justice to our normal reasoning practices and judgements of inconsistency. Thus, there is a need to determine the acceptable inconsistencies from those that are not, and to impart that information to students. We might ask: What is the best concept of inconsistency for critical reasoning and pedagogy? While the answer might appear obvious to some, the history of philosophy shows that there are many concepts of “inconsistency”, the most common of which comes from classical logic and its reliance on opposing truth-values. The current exemplar of this is the standard truth functional account from propositional logic. Initially, this conception is shown to be problematic, practically, conceptually and pedagogically speaking. Especially challenging from the classical perspective are the concepts of ex contradictione quodlibet and ex falso quodlibet. The concepts may poison the well against any notion of inconsistency, which is not something that should be done unreflectively. Ultimately, the classical account of inconsistency is rejected. In its place, a semantic conception of inconsistency is argued for and demonstrated to handle natural reasoning cases effectively. This novel conception utilises the conceptual antonym theory to explain semantic contrast and gradation, even in the absence of non-canonical antonym pairs. The semantic conception of inconsistency also fits with an interrogative argument model that exploits inconsistency to display semantic contrast in reasons and conclusions. A method for determining substantive inconsistencies follows from this argument model in a 4 straightforward manner. The conceptual fit is then incorporated into the pedagogy of critical reasoning, resulting in a natural approach to reasoning which students can apply to practical matters of everyday life, which include inconsistency. Thus, the best conception of inconsistency for critical reasoning and its pedagogy is the semantic, not the classical.Philosophy Practical and Systematic TheologyD. Phi