Springer eBooks may be purchased by end-customers only and are sold without copy protection (DRM free). Instead, all eBooks include personalized watermarks. This means you can read the Springer eBooks across numerous devices such as Laptops, eReaders, and tablets.
You can pay for Springer eBooks with Visa, Mastercard, American Express or Paypal.
After the purchase you can directly download the eBook file or read it online in our Springer eBook Reader. Furthermore your eBook will be stored in your MySpringer account. So you can always re-download your eBooks.
Comprehensive overview of the application of Baysian argumentation in philosophy, linguistics and social psychology
Includes analyses of real life court cases, results of experimental research, and insights obtained from computer models
Provides a dialectical and a dynamic perspective to argumentation and treats the natural language argument
Relevant to, and drawing from, a range of disciplines, the chapters in this collection show the diversity, and applicability, of research in Bayesian argumentation. Together, they form a challenge to philosophers versed in both the use and criticism of Bayesian models who have largely overlooked their potential in argumentation. Selected from contributions to a multidisciplinary workshop on the topic held in Lund, Sweden, in autumn 2010, the authors count legal scholars and cognitive scientists among their number, in addition to philosophers. They analyze material that includes real-life court cases, experimental research results, and the insights gained from computer models.
The volume provides a formal measure of subjective argument strength and argument force, robust enough to allow advocates of opposing sides of an argument to agree on the relative strengths of their supporting reasoning. With papers from leading figures such as Mike Oaksford and Ulrike Hahn, the book comprises recent research conducted at the frontiers of Bayesian argumentation and provides a multitude of examples in which these formal tools can be applied to informal argument. It signals new and impending developments in philosophy, which has seen Bayesian models deployed in formal epistemology and philosophy of science, but has yet to explore the full potential of Bayesian models as a framework in argumentation. In doing so, this revealing anthology looks destined to become a standard teaching text in years to come.
Content Level »Research
Keywords »Ad Hominem Argument Bayesian - Ad verecundiam - Agent Based Modeling - Argument Force - Argument Strength - Argument against the man - Argument from authority - Bayesian Group Psychology - Bayesian Legal - Bayesian Probability Calculus - Bayesian Simulation Model - Begging the Question - Bounded Rationality - Case Study Bayesian - Coherence measures - Content Source - Degrees of Justification - Dialectial Structure - Dialectical Map - Evidential Probability - Evidential certainty - Fallacies - Formal Dialectics - Game theory - Laputa Computer Similation - Measures of support - Message Content - Natural Language Argumentation - Persuasive Argument Theory - Petitio Principii - Pragma-dialectics - Preface Paradox - Probability Legal Argumentation - Stake Size - Statistical Inference - Testimony Bayesian Argumentation - Veristic value
Introduction: Frank Zenker.- Part 1.- The Bayesian Approach to Argumentation.- Chapter 1. Testimony and Argument: A Bayesian Perspective: Ulrike Hahn, Mike Oaksford and Adam J.L. Harris.- Chapter 2. Why are we convinced by the Ad Hominem Argument?: Source Reliability or Pragma-Dialectics: Mike Oaksford and Ulrike Hahn.- Part 2. The Legal Domain.-Chapter 3. A survey of uncertainties and their consequences in Probabilistic Legal Argumentation: Matthias Grabmair and Kevin D. Ashley.- Chapter 4. What went wrong in the case of Sally Clark? A case-study of the use of Statistical Evidence in Court: Amid Pundik.- Part 3. Modeling Rational Agents.- Chapter 5. A Bayesian Simulation Model of Group Deliberation: Erik J. Olsson.- Chapter 6. Degrees of Justification, Bayes' Rule, and Rationality: Gregor Betz.- Chapter 7. Argumentation with (Bounded) Rational Agents: Robert van Rooij and Kris de Jaeghery.- Part 4. Theoretical Issues.- Chapter 8. Reductio, Coherence, and the Myth of Epistemic Circularity: Tomoji Shogenji.- Chapter 9. On Argument Strength: Niki Pfeifer.- Chapter 10.- Upping the Stakes and the Preface Paradox: Jonny Blamey.- References.