FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2403178051> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2403178051 abstract "Similarity, causality and argumentation William Jimenez-Leal (w.jimenezleal@uniandes.edu.co) Christian Gaviria (cgaviria@uniandes.edu.co) Departamento de Psicologia, Universidad de los Andes. Cra. 1 No 18A- 12, Edificio Franco, Bogota, 111711. Colombia Abstract Similarity is a notion that is widely used both in cognitive science and in argumentation theory. These research programs have, however, developed in large part separately and in consequence rely on disparate notions of similarity. Only recently there has been a proposal for specifying how similarity actually plays a role in judging slippery slope arguments. We present here further theoretical discussion and empirical evidence in order to show how similarity can play a role in slippery slope arguments and in argumentation in general. In the experiment presented here, we manipulated the availability of causal information, and showed that people are sensitive to it when judging arguments’ strength. We conclude that similarity between causal properties of the elements presented in arguments is crucial for arguments’ strength assessments. Keywords: Argumentation, similarity, causality, analogical reasoning. Introduction The degree of conviction that an argument generates depends on many elements. The effectiveness of some arguments seems to depend on the perceived similarity between the elements presented in the premises and the conclusions that might follow. For example, such is the case of the argument based on precedent, where the similarity between past events and the one under discussion is such as to warrant following the same course of action as with the precedent (Walton, 2010). Similarly, some arguments fail because the relation of similarity between premises and conclusion is weak. The fallacy of false analogy (Tindale, 2007) is one example, where there is a comparison between situations based on superficial similarities that do not support the conclusion. Walton, Reed & Macagno (2008) recognize that judgements of similarity between a class and an exemplar are key for the quality of arguments from verbal classification (from definition, vagueness, arbitrariness) (See also Macagno, 2009; Walton, 2009). The notion of similarity is thus central to explaining why people deem some arguments good or bad, and it is taken as a primitive element for explaining how people evaluate arguments. Similarly, the typologies of arguments put forward by perspectives like the dialectical (Walton, 2010) and the pragma-dialectical (van Eemeren, Houtlosser, & Snoeck, 2007), rely on identification of similarity. In the pragma- dialectical perspective, for example, one of the three main types of arguments is the ‘argumentation based on comparison” (van Eemeren, et al., 2007), where the argument and the standpoint argued for refer to different things but share a predicate. In the example “It is not at all necessary to give James a 10 dollar allowance, because his brother always got 10 dollars a week”, the similarity between James and his brother regarding the money needed, is the justification that allows one to proceed from premise to conclusion (Hitchcock & Wagenmans, 2011). In fact, the questions proposed to identify this type of argumentation scheme presuppose the notion of similarity (e.g. “Are there enough relevant similarities in the things that are compared?”) Similarity thus plays a dual role in argumentation: not only is it proposed that similarity judgments are performed by people engaged in argumentation, but it is also suggested that argumentation schemes are to be identified by questions that imply similarity judgements. That is, similarity plays a role both in explaining what people do, and also as a tool that the argumentation scholar needs to identify arguments and evaluate its correctness. Even though there has been vigorous research on the role of similarity in several psychological processes (Goldstone & Son, 2005), and despite argumentation research consistently using this construct as a tool to characterise several argumentation schemes (Walton et al, 2008), little work has been done to integrate the findings of cognitive science into our understanding of how people reason with arguments. In what follows, we will briefly examine the most common notions of similarity currently in use in cognitive science and consider the only work we are aware of that explicitly makes use of this idea to explain argument strength (Corner, Hahn & Oaksford, 2011). This will lead us to consider causality as one of the key ideas that is missing when using similarity as an explanatory principle. We will then present some empirical evidence to support our claims. Similarity and cognitive science It is difficult to overstate the importance of similarity as an explanatory tool in cognitive science. From categorisation to analogy, similarity judgements are advanced to explain very diverse phenomena. Links between rules and similarity as well as the very need of appealing to similarity in explaining cognition have been widely discussed (Sloman & Rips, 1998; Goldstone, Day & Son, 2010). It is more or less accepted that alternative ways of conceiving similarity capture different intuitions about our use of this notion, and that all have different weaknesses and strengths. The multiplicity of contexts in which it is possible to use the notion of similarity is consistent with the diversity of ways in which people judge that objects are alike. One can distinguish three main models to conceive similarity: geometric models, featural models and alignment based" @default.
• W2403178051 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2403178051 creator A5030730103 @default.
• W2403178051 creator A5074424496 @default.
• W2403178051 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2403178051 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2403178051 title "Similarity, causality and argumentation" @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1481799803 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1512035335 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1516575936 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1588234186 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1601828931 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1824722203 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1983275576 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1996120854 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W1997729658 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2038726047 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2045024942 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2059975159 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2077621701 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2089693292 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2107517384 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2112911900 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2132089731 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2149196449 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2164797238 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2279816175 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W2590703529 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W3124264489 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W3125506016 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W3126028283 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W403636135 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W627368152 @default.
• W2403178051 cites W658619875 @default.
• W2403178051 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2403178051 type Work @default.
• W2403178051 sameAs 2403178051 @default.
• W2403178051 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2403178051 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2403178051 hasAuthorship W2403178051A5030730103 @default.
• W2403178051 hasAuthorship W2403178051A5074424496 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C103278499 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C115086926 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C115961682 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C2777278149 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C64357122 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C65059942 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C103278499 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C111472728 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C115086926 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C115961682 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C121332964 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C138885662 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C154945302 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C15744967 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C169760540 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C169900460 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C17744445 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C185592680 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C199539241 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C2777278149 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C33923547 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C41008148 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C55493867 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C62520636 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C64357122 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C65059942 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C77805123 @default.
• W2403178051 hasConceptScore W2403178051C98184364 @default.
• W2403178051 hasIssue "35" @default.
• W2403178051 hasLocation W24031780511 @default.
• W2403178051 hasOpenAccess W2403178051 @default.
• W2403178051 hasPrimaryLocation W24031780511 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W1512811346 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W1893638377 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W1960231166 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W197458784 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W2036841273 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W2066080845 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W213626464 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W2159202926 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W2465582992 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W2583640572 @default.
• W2403178051 hasRelatedWork W2625712063 @default.

• next