A neural cognitive model of argumentation with application to legal inference and decision making

Formal models of argumentation have been investigated in several areas, from multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence (AI) to decision making, philosophy and law. In artificial intelligence, logic-based models have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. More recently, the standard logic-based models have been shown equivalent to standard connectionist models. This has created a new line of research where (i) neural networks can be used as a parallel computational model for argumentation and (ii) neural networks can be used to combine argumentation, quantitative reasoning and statistical learning. At the same time, non-standard logic models of argumentation started to emerge. In this paper, we propose a connectionist cognitive model of argumentation that accounts for both standard and non-standard forms of argumentation. The model is shown to be an adequate framework for dealing with standard and non-standard argumentation, including joint-attacks, argument support, ordered attacks, disjunctive attacks, meta-level attacks, self-defeating attacks, argument accrual and uncertainty. We show that the neural cognitive approach offers an adequate way of modelling all of these different aspects of argumentation. We have applied the framework to the modelling of a public prosecution charging decision as part of a real legal decision making case study containing many of the above aspects of argumentation. The results show that the model can be a useful tool in the analysis of legal decision making, including the analysis of what-if questions and the analysis of alternative conclusions. The approach opens up two new perspectives in the short-term: the use of neural networks for computing prevailing arguments efficiently through the propagation in parallel of neuronal activations, and the use of the same networks to evolve the structure of the argumentation network through learning (e.g. to learn the strength of arguments from data).     

Argumentational Integrity: A Training Program for Dealing with Unfair Argumentative Contributions

In this article we present a training program based on the empirical research conducted in the project 'argumentational integrity'. After a brief sketch of the problem dimensions concerning unfair argumentation we give an overview of the training concept and the underlying empirical research. Exemplification of the instructional design is given for the second and the fifth training dimension (standards of argumentational integrity and reactions to unfair contributions). Finally we indicate how the training is to be evaluated and present initial results demonstrating that in comparison with an untrained control group participants in the training significantly improve their skills in identifying and naming argumentative rule violations.     

Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Empirical research in the field of legal interpretation shows that, in many cases, analogy argumentation is complex rather than simple. Traditional analytical approaches to analogy argumentation do not explore that complexity. In most cases analogy argumentation is reconstructed as a simple form of argumentation that consists of two premises and a conclusion. This article focuses on the question of how to analyze and evaluate complex analogy argumentation. It is shown how the pragma-dialectical approach provides clues for analyzing complex analogy argumentation and how the criteria for evaluating analogy argumentation can be used to reconstruct these types of complex analogy argumentation in Dutch case law. The critical questions in the argumentation scheme do not only serve as a tool for analyzing arguments justifying analogy argumentation, but are also helpful in analyzing arguments against a specific analogy argumentation.     

Woman and the gift of reason

An incidental extension of the central domain of argumentation theory with non-classical ways of constructing arguments seems to automatically raise a question that is otherwise rarely posed, namely whether or not it is useful to consider the sex of the arguer. This question is usually posed with regard to argumentation by women in particular. Do women rely more, or differently than men do on non-canonical modes of reasoning stemming from the realm of the emotional, physical and intuitive, instead of the logical? One may simply refer this question to folk-linguistics. One may also take the question seriously, given the findings on women's linguistic behaviour, and for various other reasons that will be explained below.Section 1 sums up the most frequently quoted differences in language use between women and men. This is followed by a non-exhaustive, interdisciplinary review of studies on male/female differences in verbal and written argumentation.Section 2 discusses the role of language and texts in generating and maintaining ideas on gender. These gender messages not only influence the actual argumentation behaviour of women and men, but also the way such behaviour is valued.Section 3 subsequently shows that our ideas on rationality are gendered, and therefore also our ideas on the proper central domain of argumentation theory.Section 4 briefly reflects on why this kind of wrong question about the reasoning of women should sometimes be addressed seriously anyway.     

A formal account of Socratic-style argumentation

In traditional mathematical models of argumentation an argument often consists of a chain of rules or reasons, beginning with premisses and leading to a conclusion that is endorsed by the party that put forward the argument. In informal reasoning, however, one often encounters a specific class of counterarguments that until now has received little attention in argumentation formalisms. The idea is that instead of starting with the premisses, the argument starts with the propositions put forward by the counterparty, of which the absurdity is illustrated by showing their (defeasible) consequences. This way of argumentation (which we call S-arguments) is very akin to Socratic dialogues and critical interviews; it also has applications in modern philosophy. In this paper, various examples of S-arguments are provided, as well as a treatment of the problems that occur when trying to formalize them in existing formalisms. We also provide general guidelines that can serve as a basis for implementing S-arguments into various existing formalisms. In particular, we show how S-arguments can be implemented in Pollock's formalism, how they fit into Dung's abstract argumentation approach and how they are related to the issue of self-defeating arguments.     

Forebrain circuits and control of feeding by learned cues

Professor Richard F. Thompson and his highly influential work on the brain substrates of associative learning and memory have critically shaped my research interests and scientific approach. I am tremendously grateful and thank Professor Thompson for the support and influence on my research and career. The focus of my research program is on associative learning and its role in the control of fundamental, motivated behaviors. My long-term research goal is to understand how learning enables environmental cues to control feeding behavior. We use a combination of behavioral studies and neural systems analysis approach in two well-defined rodent models to study how learned cues are integrated with homeostatic signals within functional forebrain networks, and how these networks are modulated by experience. Here, I will provide an overview of the two behavioral models and the critical neural network components mapped thus far, which include areas in the forebrain, the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, critical for associative learning and decision-making, and the lateral hypothalamus, which is an integrator for feeding, reward and motivation.     

Thick,Thin, and Becoming a Virtuous Arguer

A virtue account is focused on the character of those who argue. It is frequently assumed, however, that virtues are not action guiding, since they describe how to be and so fail to give us specific actions to take in a sticky situation. In terms of argumentation, we might say that being a charitable arguer is virtuous, but knowing so provides no details about how to argue successfully. To close this gap, I develop a parallel with the thick-thin distinction from ethics and use Hursthouse’s notion of “v-rules”. I also draw heavily from the work in argumentation by Daniel Cohen to develop Wayne Brockriede’s notion of arguing lovingly. But “argue lovingly” has a delicious ambiguity. For Brockriede it describes how we engage with others arguers. It can also mean, however, a loving attachment to knowledge, understanding, and truth. Applying the thick-thin distinction to argumentation in general and loving argumentation in particular shows that a virtue theoretic approach to argumentation is valuable for two reasons: it can provide one articulation of what it means to be a virtuous arguer and provide some insights into how to become one.     

Some unifying fixed point principles

This article is written for both the general mathematican and the specialist in mathematical logic. No prior knowledge of metamathematics, recursion theory or combinatory logic is presupposed, although this paper deals with quite general abstractions of standard results in those three areas. Our purpose is to show how some apparently diverse results in these areas can be derived from a common construction. In Section 1 we consider five classical fixed point arguments (or rather, generalizations of them) which we present as problems that the reader might enjoy trying to solve. Solutions are given at the end of the section. In Section 2 we show how all these solutions can be obtained as special cases of a single fixed point theorem. In Section 3 we consider another generalization of the five fixed point results of Section 1 and show that this is of the same strength as that of Section 2. In Section 4 we show some curious strengthenings of results of Section 3 which we believe to be of some interest on their own accounts.     

Disclosing Sexual Assault Within Social Networks: A Mixed‐Method Investigation

Most survivors of sexual assault disclose their experiences within their social networks, and these disclosure decisions can have important implications for their entry into formal systems and well‐being, but no research has directly examined these networks as a strategy to understand disclosure decisions. Using a mixed‐method approach that combined survey data, social network analysis, and interview data, we investigate whom, among potential informal responders in the social networks of college students who have experienced sexual assault, survivors contact regarding their assault, and how survivors narrate the role of networks in their decisions about whom to contact. Quantitative results suggest that characteristics of survivors, their social networks, and members of these networks are associated with disclosure decisions. Using data from social network analysis, we identified that survivors tended to disclose to a smaller proportion of their network when many network members had relationships with each other or when the network had more subgroups. Our qualitative analysis helps to contextualize these findings.     

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework. Using this approach, it becomes possible to define the grounded extension in terms of modal logic entailment.     

“But We Want to Work”: The Movement of Child Workers in Peru and the Actions for Reducing Child Labor

The program Edúcame Primero (Educate Me First) is an evidence‐based practice for eradicating child labor that has been applied with positive results in Colombia, Peru, and several Central American countries. In this article, we describe the difficulties of implementing the program in two poor areas of Lima (Peru) between 2014 and 2016. Specifically, we discuss three ethical challenges faced during the implementation of the program: (a) the existence of a movement of working children that defends the right of children to work; (b) the polarization of some community‐based associations and government institutions on how to deal with the problems of working children; and (c) the use of network indicators in the evaluation of the community's level of cohesion. Taking the Code of Ethics of the General Council of Associations of Psychologists in Spain as a guide, we adopted a consensus approach in planning and research design, combining different criteria of value with the participation of different stakeholders. The implementation of the program in Peru gave preference to developing skills in children over changing attitudes in relation to child protection, although the intervention openly declared its aims when engaging institutions and families. Finally, we address how social network research places special ethical demands on conventional ethical standards. Our experience with this project shows the importance of acting as a bridge between different stakeholders and assessing how all of them benefit from the intervention.     

Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy that Promotes Discussion and Reasoning

The value of argumentation in science education has become internationally recognised and has been the subject of many research studies in recent years. Successful introduction of argumentation activities in learning contexts involves extending teaching goals beyond the understanding of facts and concepts, to include an emphasis on cognitive and metacognitive processes, epistemic criteria and reasoning. The authors focus on the difficulties inherent in shifting a tradition of teaching from one dominated by authoritative exposition to one that is more dialogic, involving small-group discussion based on tasks that stimulate argumentation. The paper focuses on how argumentation activities have been designed in school science. Examples of classroom dialogue where teachers adopt the frameworks/plans are analysed to show how argumentation processes are scaffolded. The analysis shows that several layers of interpretation are needed and these layers need to be aligned for successful implementation.     

Hybrid preference machines based on inspiration from neuroscience

In the past, a variety of computational problems have been tackled with different connectionist network approaches. However, very little research has been done on a framework which connects neuroscience-inspired models with connectionist models and higher level symbolic processing. In this paper, we outline a preference machine framework which focuses on a hybrid integration of various neural and symbolic techniques in order to address how we may process higher level concepts based on concepts from neuroscience. It is a first hybrid framework which allows a link between spiking neural networks, connectionist preference machines and symbolic finite state machines. Furthermore, we present an example experiment on interpreting a neuroscience-inspired network by using preferences which may be connected to connectionist or symbolic interpretations.     

广义论证视域下朱熹论辩逻辑体系的考察

近年来,广义论证视域下的中国古代逻辑史研究成为学界关注的热点,在丰硕的研究成果中,仍存在“怎样深化”与“如何拓展”等问题。在广义论证视域下对朱熹论辩逻辑体系进行考察,一方面可以打破以往研究主要集中在先秦时期的囿限,进一步拓展其研究范围;另一方面也可以在逻辑体系的构建中深化中国古代逻辑研究。从广义论证角度看,朱熹的逻辑是“名义界分”“知言穷理”等说理论证规则的集合,基于上述逻辑,朱熹同陆九渊、张栻等人围绕“太极”“仁说”等进行论辩实践,逐步建立起以名、辞理论为基础的“名、辞–辩”的逻辑体系。上述体系对后世影响深远。从广义论证角度考察朱熹论辩逻辑体系,对新时期回应如何做“中国古代逻辑”具有启发意义。     

Investigating stereotype structure with empirical network models

In this work we present empirical network models as a new approach in the investigation of stereotype structure. We will argue that empirical network models can provide more insight into stereotype structure because they do not suffer from the inherent constraints of factor analysis and multidimensional scaling (e.g., group features interpreted homogeneously only on the basis of their shared variance, impossibility to adequately represent cognitive schemas, difficulties to make inferences on the basis of dimensions potentially overlapping). In the present research we show how empirical network models can represent stereotypes as dynamic cognitive structures clustered in different substructures. These structures will be based on both the stereotype content and the co-occurrence of features in each group target. Additionally, this research shows how using empirical networks can contribute to broadening the interpretation of stereotypes representing them in the framework of prejudice or intergroup attitudes.     

The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory

The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper does not aim at exhaustive elaboration of any of these topics or their usefulness in current discussions within argumentation theory. Rather, we intend to indicate chosen directions of a potentially fruitful research program for the emerging Polish School of Argumentation which would consist in application of methods and conceptions elaborated by the LWS to selected open problems of contemporary research on argumentation.     

Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper

The usage of psychological networks that conceptualize behavior as a complex interplay of psychological and other components has gained increasing popularity in various research fields. While prior publications have tackled the topics of estimating and interpreting such networks, little work has been conducted to check how accurate (i.e., prone to sampling variation) networks are estimated, and how stable (i.e., interpretation remains similar with less observations) inferences from the network structure (such as centrality indices) are. In this tutorial paper, we aim to introduce the reader to this field and tackle the problem of accuracy under sampling variation. We first introduce the current state-of-the-art of network estimation. Second, we provide a rationale why researchers should investigate the accuracy of psychological networks. Third, we describe how bootstrap routines can be used to (A) assess the accuracy of estimated network connections, (B) investigate the stability of centrality indices, and (C) test whether network connections and centrality estimates for different variables differ from each other. We introduce two novel statistical methods: for (B) the correlation stability coefficient, and for (C) the bootstrapped difference test for edge-weights and centrality indices. We conducted and present simulation studies to assess the performance of both methods. Finally, we developed the free R-package bootnet that allows for estimating psychological networks in a generalized framework in addition to the proposed bootstrap methods. We showcase bootnet in a tutorial, accompanied by R syntax, in which we analyze a dataset of 359 women with posttraumatic stress disorder available online.     

Introduction to the Special Section: Toward Implementing Physiological Measures in Clinical Assessments of Adult Mental Health

This article serves as the introduction to the Special Section called “Toward Implementing Physiological Measures in Clinical Assessments of Adult Mental Health.” As such, it provides an overview of the importance of integrating assessments of physiological and subjective processes in mental health assessments and discusses the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative. In addition, it summarizes the findings from the four empirical studies published in the Special Section. Collectively, these studies sought to illustrate how physiological assessments can be incorporated in mental health assessments conducted in applied research and clinic settings. In all, we hope that this Special Section will inspire the type of interdisciplinary research spanning basic and applied work that will be critical to advancing the RDoC initiative.     

Points of View

An adequate evaluation of argumentation requires identification of the object to which the argumentation pertains: the point of view. What are the distinguishing features of this object? In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, the object of argumentation is referred to by means of the notion ‘standpoint’. In other theories concerned with argumentation, reasoning, convincing or persuading, notions are used such as ‘thesis’, ‘conclusion’, ‘opinion’ and ‘attitude’. This paper is a survey of the characterisations of the object of argumentation given in the various theories. It discusses the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, socio-psychological research on persuasion, cognitive research on reasoning, argumentative discourse analysis, two variants of informal logic, advocacy and debate, and the theory of communicative action. Next, it explores some relations between the notions used in these theories. Finally, it outlines some starting points for further research into the problems of identification.