Formal argumentation and human reasoning: the case of reinstatement
Files
Date
2009
Authors
Madakkatel, M.I.
Rahwan, I.
Bonnefon, J.F.
Awan, R.N.
Abdallah, S.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Conference paper
Citation
2009 AAAI Fall Symposium Series: The Uses of Computational Argumentation, 2009, vol.FS-09-06, pp.46-51
Statement of Responsibility
Conference Name
2009 AAAI Fall Symposium Series: The Uses of Computational Argumentation (5 Nov 2009 - 7 Nov 2009 : Arlington, Virginia)
Abstract
Argumentation is now a very fertile area of research in Artificial Intelligence. Yet, most approaches to reasoning with arguments in AI are based on a normative perspective, relying on intuition as to what constitutes correct reasoning, sometimes aided by purpose-built hypothetical examples. For these models to be useful in agent-human argumentation, they can benefit from an alternative, positivist perspective that takes into account the empirical reality of human reasoning. To give a flavour of the kinds of lessons that this methodology can provide, we report on a psychological study exploring simple reinstatement in argumentation semantics. Empirical results show that while reinstatement is cognitively plausible in principle, it does not yield full recovery of the argument status, a notion not captured in Dung's classical model. This result suggests some possible avenues for research relevant to making formal models of argument more useful.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
Copyright 2009 Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence