What do we intend to do this week

1
What do we intend to do this week

• Jim the importance of context (what is it and
  how may we represent it)
• Chris effect of context on argument in
• JF situations affect this (whether
• Does computational model accommodate rhetoric
• Does the nature and ethos of the medical domain
  (reality) permit rhetoric
• Can rhetoric usefully affect presentation of
  arguments

2
A space of argumentation theories
Natural phenomena
Formal theories
Single agent
Multi- agent
3
Implementing rhetorical argument

• Introduction (CR)
• What is rhetoric, interesting features etc.
• Possible use of rhetoric in computer systems
• Rhetorical argument is open-textured but vague
• Computational argument is precise but
  inflexible
• Models
• (1) Conservative then elaborate for different
  audiences (JF)
• (2) Licentious then filter for different
  audiences (JW)
• Example smoking (SCS)
• Discussions of contexts of argument, roles and
  questions
• Conclusions can we implement rhetoric? (All)

4
Questions

• Is rhetoric a means of reasoning or merely a
  means of presentation
• Are there forms of judging which are not amenable
  to computational realisation
• Are there forms of presentation methods which are
  not appropriate for computers
• Dependency of arguments on context

5
Context of use

• Decision support system
• Autonomous decision maker
• Educational tool (subject and argument methods)
• Persuasion machine
• Analytical tool

6
Dialectical argumentationoptions for different
audiences

• Presentation of parameters (filters)
• Selection of different argumentation schemas
• Values
• Preferences
• Relevance
• Global perspectives
• Rationalist
• Empiricist

7
Is smoking bad for Gerry
8
Theory ? Context ? (Claim, Grounds, Force)Agg
Arguments ? Claim
Beliefs (tobacco, health, terms/concepts,
values)
Gerry
Pleasure
Coolness
Girls
Peers and heroes
Parents
Health
Communication
(SisG,G,F)
(SisB,G,F)
Girls
Smoking is good For Gerry
Smoking is bad For Gerry
?12
9
Argument from authority

• The argument schema
• ( good(P),
• (authority(A)
• says(A,good(P) )
• supported )
• With the standard rule
• authority(A) if
• admired(A) and
• not(discredited(A))

The generalised argument schema ( good(P) for
Au, (authority(A for Au) says(A, P
) supported ) ( arguable(P for
Au), (arguable((P,G,Force) for
U), acceptable((P,G,Force),Au)) Force)
10
Dialectical argumentationoptions for different
audiences

• Presentation of parameters (filters)
• Selection of different argumentation schemas
• Values
• Preferences
• Relevance
• Global perspectives
• Rationalist
• Empiricist