An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence

Tribunals have come to depend increasingly on expertise for determining the facts in cases. However, current legal methods have proved problematic to work with. This paper argues that, as a special model of public understanding of science, assessing expertise should consider source credibility of expertise from internal aspects, including scientific validity and reliability, and external aspects involving the credibility of experts. Using the Carneades Argumentation System we show that the internal and the external aspects are mediated by the structure of the argument from expert opinion with its matching set of critical questions

Burden of proof

ABSTRACT. This paper presents an analysis of the concept of burden of proof in argument. Relationship of burden of proof to three traditional informal fallacies is considered: (i) argumentum ad hominem (ii) petitio principii and (iii) argumentum ad ignorantiam. Other topics discussed include persuasive dialogue, pragmatic reasoning, legal burden of proof, plausible reasoning in regulated disputes, rules of dialogue, and the value of reasoned dialogue. KEY WORDS. Argumentation, persuasion, dialogue, fallacies, rhetoric, informal logic, pragmatics, presumption. It has been shown by Whately, Perelman, Johnstone, Hintikka, Barth and Krabbe, and Meyer, that philosophical argumentation is based on a framework of i nteractive question-answer dialogue between two speakers who take opposing sides on a controversial issue. Of course, this tradition is no novelty in philosophy, and is most closely identified with Socratic dialogue as a model of philosophical argument. If one takes this conception of philosophical argument seriously, traditional informal fallacies like the petitio principii, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum ad ignorantiam are revealed as (a) not fallacies in many instances, but forms of plausible reasoning that can be reasonable arguments to shift a burden of proof, and (b) extremely important types of criticism in argumentation that can have the legitimate function of shifting a burden or weight of evidence against, or in favor of presumptions in an argument. However, these traditional categories of argument called informal fallacies can only be themselves revealed as deeply interesting and fundamental objects of study for philosophy once some headway has been made in understanding the underlying concept of burden of proof in argument. But the literature offers more questions than answers on the subject of burden of proof. The arguments of this paper are motivated by an interest in trying to provide answers for the following six questions. 1. How does burden of proof get set initially in reasoned dialogue? Argumentation 2 (1988) 233-254

Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning

Plausible (eikotic) reasoning known from ancient Greek (late Academic) skeptical philosophy is shown to be a clear notion that can be analyzed by argu- mentation methods, and that is important for argumentation studies. It is shown how there is a continuous thread running from the Sophists to the skeptical philosopher Carneades, through remarks of Locke and Bentham on the subject, to recent research in artificial intelligence. Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important in ancient Greek skeptical philosophy using an artificial intelligence model called the Carneades Argumentation System (CAS). By applying CAS to ancient examples it is shown how plausible reasoning is especially useful for gaining a better understanding of evidential reasoning in law, and argued that it can also be applied to everyday argumentation. Our analysis of the snake and rope example of Carneades is also used to point out some ways CAS needs to be extended if it is to more fully model the views of this ancient philosopher on argumentation

Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: the case of a Ugandan hospital

BACKGROUND: Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. However, there is lack of literature that describes and evaluates priority setting in these contexts. The objective of this paper is to describe priority setting in a teaching hospital in Uganda and evaluate the description against an ethical framework for fair priority setting processes – Accountability for Reasonableness. METHODS: A case study in a 1,500 bed national referral hospital receiving 1,320 out patients per day and an average budget of US$ 13.5 million per year. We reviewed documents and carried out 70 in-depth interviews (14 health planners, 40 doctors, and 16 nurses working at the hospital). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis employed the modified thematic approach to describe priority setting, and the description was evaluated using the four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness: relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement. RESULTS: Senior managers, guided by the hospital strategic plan make the hospital budget allocation decisions. Frontline practitioners expressed lack of knowledge of the process. Relevance: Priority is given according to a cluster of factors including need, emergencies and patient volume. However, surgical departments and departments whose leaders "make a lot of noise" are also prioritized. Publicity: Decisions, but not reasons, are publicized through general meetings and circulars, but this information does not always reach the frontline practitioners. Publicity to the general public was through ad hoc radio programs and to patients who directly ask. Revisions: There were no formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. Enforcement: There were no mechanisms to ensure adherence to the four conditions of a fair process. CONCLUSION: Priority setting decisions at this hospital do not satisfy the conditions of fairness. To improve, the hospital should: (i) engage frontline practitioners, (ii) publicize the reasons for decisions both within the hospital and to the general public, and (iii) develop formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. In addition, capacity strengthening is required for senior managers who must accept responsibility for ensuring that the above three conditions are met

Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices

Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy

In this paper, it is shown (1) that there are two schemes for argument from analogy that seem to be competitors but are not, (2) how one of them is based on a distinctive type of similarity premise, (3) how to analyze the notion of similarity using story schemes illustrated by some cases, (4) how arguments from precedent are based on arguments from analogy, and in many instances arguments from classification, and (5) that when similarity is defined by means of episode schemes, we can get a clearer idea of how it integrates with the use of argument from classification and argument from precedent in case-based reasoning by using a dialogue structure

Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1) over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates), and (2) 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates). Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system) and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality) for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system) resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario Wait Time Strategy) with special attention to public engagement, and provided a concrete plan to operationalize a strategy for improving public involvement in this, and other, wait time initiatives.</p