About: Argumentation scheme

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Argumentation scheme Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FArgumentation_scheme

In argumentation theory, an argumentation scheme or argument scheme is a template that represents a common type of argument used in ordinary conversation. Many different argumentation schemes have been identified. Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Argumentation scheme (en)
rdfs:comment	In argumentation theory, an argumentation scheme or argument scheme is a template that represents a common type of argument used in ordinary conversation. Many different argumentation schemes have been identified. Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc. (en)
dct:subject	Arguments
Wikipage page ID	61290799 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1069861155 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Probabilistic reasoning Rule of thumb Enthymeme Beyond a reasonable doubt Debate Deductive reasoning Argument Argument from analogy Argument mining Argumentation theory Rhetoric Validity (logic) Defeasible reasoning Architectural pattern Inference Informal logic Pedagogical pattern Practical reason Presumption of innocence Conversation Arguments Material conditional Rebuttal Conditional proof Critical thinking Logic Closed-world assumption Pattern language Proposition Burden of proof (philosophy) Causality Abductive reasoning Fallacies Non-monotonic logic Discourse analysis Education Educational Psychologist (journal) Formal fallacy Logical connective Logical consequence Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca Premise Probability Inventio Argument from authority Aristotle Artificial intelligence Academic discipline Affirming the consequent Charles Leonard Hamblin Chaïm Perelman Syllogism Heuristic Stephen Toulmin Topics (Aristotle) Modus ponens Dialectics Doug Walton Classical logic Inductive reasoning Reasoning Semantic Rule of inference Dialectical Philosophy & Rhetoric Legal philosophy Decisional balance Deductive inference Inference rule Semantic relation Standard of proof dbr:Wikt:cogent
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications/pdf/bnaic2004.pdf https://www.academia.edu/4217369 https://www.academia.edu/4339109 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301536834 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314915348
sameAs	Argumentation scheme Argumentation scheme Argumentation scheme
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Citation_needed dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Div_col dbt:Div_col_end dbt:Harvtxt dbt:Main dbt:Refbegin dbt:Refend dbt:Reflist dbt:Rp dbt:Short_description dbt:Slink dbt:Logic
has abstract	In argumentation theory, an argumentation scheme or argument scheme is a template that represents a common type of argument used in ordinary conversation. Many different argumentation schemes have been identified. Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc. The study of argumentation schemes (under various names) dates back to the time of Aristotle, and today argumentation schemes are used for argument identification, argument analysis, argument evaluation, and argument invention. Some basic features of argumentation schemes can be seen by examining the scheme called argument from effect to cause, which has the form: "If A occurs, then B will (or might) occur, and in this case B occurred, so in this case A presumably occurred." This scheme may apply, for example, when someone argues: "Presumably there was a fire, since there was smoke and if there is a fire then there will be smoke." This example looks like the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent ("If A is true then B is also true, and B is true, so A must be true"), but in this example the material conditional logical connective ("A implies B") in the formal fallacy does not account for exactly why the semantic relation between premises and conclusion in the example, namely causality, may be reasonable ("fire causes smoke"), while not all formally valid conditional premises are reasonable (such as in the valid modus ponens argument "If there is a cat then there is smoke, and there is a cat, so there must be smoke"). As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of semantic (or substantive) relations that inference rules in classical logic ignore. More than one argumentation scheme may apply to the same argument; in this example, the more complex abductive argumentation scheme may also apply. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Argumentation_scheme?oldid=1069861155&ns=0

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git145 as of Aug 30 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 49 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software