Letzteres war eine sinnvolle Entscheidung, denn die ökonomischen Fak- toren mit hineinzupacken, hätte den Ansatz des Buches verwässert. Insgesamt hat Yuliya von Saal eine auf breiter Quellengrundlage ...und in der stringenten Argumentation rundum überzeugende Untersuchung vorgelegt, die nicht nur für Sowjetunionspezialisten interessant ist und zu Recht in der gut sichtbaren Reihe des Münchner Instituts für Zeitgeschichte erschienen ist. Auch sprachlich-stilistisch bewegte sich der Text auf einem hohen Niveau und ist durchgängig gut verständlich und flüssig lesbar.
In dialogical argumentation, it is often assumed that the involved parties will always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other and realize all of the associated relations, ...conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views whenever new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, dropping some of them has become quite challenging.
Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed or disbelieved by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It comes equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed. Thus, this approach is potentially more suitable for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions or counterarguments with respect to standard Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including situations in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments.
In this paper we will describe the results of an experiment in which participants were asked to judge dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We will compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation.
•Paper presents an empirical study with participants on dialogical argumentation.•The data supports the use of constellation approach to probabilistic argumentation.•The data supports the use of epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation.•The data supports the use of bipolar and prudent/careful argumentation.•Results show people use their own knowledge to make decisions and may not disclose it.
Friedrich II Schattkowsky, Ralph
Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas,
04/2015, Letnik:
63, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Es passt viel besser zum weiteren (beziehungslosen) Erscheinungsbild Friedrichs, dass er eben kein inneres Verhältnis zu den Polen und zum polnischen Staat hatte, die Beziehungen seinen ...machtpolitischen Doktrinen unterordnete und das polnische Schicksal ihm einfach gleichgültig war. Hochinteressant sind ebenfalls die Passagen, wo vielfach belegt wird, dass es polnischerseits keinesfalls eine zur negativen Polenpolitik adäquate Rezeption Friedrichs in Polen gab, sondern seine Bewertung sich zunächst von einer antipreußischen Haltung sehr wohl absetzte und das Negativstereotyp Friedrich ein Produkt der nationalen Bewegung und historischen Argumentation zum Ende des 19. In Kapitel 8 stellt der Autor in großer kulturgeschichtlicher Breite den entscheidenden Prozess in der deutschen Geschichte dar, wo sich das preußisch-deutsche Friedrich-Bild mit antipolnischen Elementen untrennbar verbindet.
Dung's Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions, including the possibility of representing uncertainty about the existence of arguments and attacks. In this regard, two ...main proposals have been introduced in the literature: Probabilistic Argumentation Framework (PrAF) and Incomplete Argumentation Framework (iAF). PrAF is an extension of AF with probability theory, thus representing quantified uncertainty. In contrast, iAF represents unquantified uncertainty, that is it can be seen as a special case where we only know that some elements (arguments or attacks) are uncertain. In this paper, we first address the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted in PrAF. This is carried out by introducing the concept of probabilistic explanation for any given (probabilistic) extension. We show that the complexity of the problem is FP#P-hard and propose polynomial approximation algorithms with bounded additive error for PrAFs where odd-length cycles are forbidden. We investigate the approximate complexity of the related FP#P-hard problems of credulous and skeptical acceptance in PrAF, showing that they are generally harder than the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted. Next we consider iAF and, after showing some equivalence properties among classes of iAFs, we study iAF as a special case of PrAF where uncertain elements have associated a probability equal to 1/2. Finally, given this result, we investigate the relationships between iAF acceptance problems and probabilistic acceptance in PrAF.
This paper presents a formal model of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation ...framework. First a model is proposed that is abstract but designed to avoid overly limiting assumptions on instantiations or dialogue contexts. It is then shown that most principles for argument strength proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notions of dialectical strength, which clarifies the rational foundations of these principles and highlights the importance of distinguishing between kinds of argument strength, in particular logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength. The abstract model is then instantiated with ASPIC+ to test the claim that it does not make overly limiting assumptions on the structure of arguments and the nature of their relations.
Randomness and fuzziness of argumentation have attracted the interest of many researchers. However, though each of these two properties is discussed in the past, seldom literature considers both of ...them. The purpose of this paper aims to explore semantics of the argumentation frameworks with these two attributes at the same time. Firstly, we introduce probabilistic-fuzzy matrices to describe the arguments with randomness and fuzziness, and define the mathematical form of the probabilistic-fuzzy argumentation frameworks. In these frameworks, an argument has finite fuzzy states and each fuzzy state has a probability. This provides a mathematical foundation for the follow-up work. Then, we introduce a method of modifying the probabilities of the fuzzy states, which proposes a feasible way to revise the probabilities. Formally, it is the revision of the probabilistic-fuzzy matrices of arguments. Finally, based on this process, we set up an extension semantics system for probabilistic-fuzzy frameworks. The semantics enriches the theory of argumentation, and propose a way to check the probabilities.
The skill of argumentation in the second language (L2) is problematic for secondary school students who are deficient in expressing structurally and qualitatively appropriate arguments. Debate has ...been widely acclaimed as an effective pedagogical tool that can improve L2 argumentation skills of students. However, the existing evidence is anecdotal. This intervention study, which employed a pretest-posttest control group design involving eight classes at three secondary schools in The Netherlands, was conducted to investigate to what extent debate instruction in L2 affects a number of L2 structural (e.g. sub-arguments and rebuttals) and quality (e.g. elaboration and persuasiveness of arguments) aspects of argumentation. To gauge the effect of the intervention, we analyzed written and oral opinion tasks produced by the participants at the beginning and towards the end of the intervention. We used an adjusted version of Toulmin's argumentation model to undertake the structural analysis and a 5-point scale rubric to assess different aspects of reasoning quality. Multilevel analysis of the data revealed that debate instruction had a positive effect upon a number of structural components and quality aspects of the written and oral argumentation skills. These findings led us to conclude that debate constitutes a conducive pedagogy for honing argumentation skills.
This article presents a critical analysis of the main modern approaches to the problem of meta-argumentation and suggests a method for developing a general conception of meta-argumentation. A set of ...theoretical-methodological difficulties (aporias) along this path is revealed. Overcoming these aporias would constitute the main steps toward developing the body of a theory of meta-argumentation.
PDF
