Argumentation theory facts for kids

Argumentation theory, also simply called argumentation, is the study of how we can support or challenge ideas using logical reasoning. It looks at how people use debate, conversation, and persuasion to make their points. This field explores the rules of thinking and discussion, both in computer systems and in real life.

Argumentation includes different kinds of talks, like deliberation (where people work together to make decisions) and negotiation (where they try to find agreements). It also covers eristic dialogue, which is about winning an argument, and didactic dialogue, used for teaching. This study helps us understand how people express and solve disagreements in a sensible way.

You can see argumentation every day, like in public debates, in science, and in law. For example, in courts, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors use argumentation to present and check the truthfulness of evidence. Argumentation scholars also study how people try to explain decisions they made without thinking clearly.

Argumentation is one of four main ways we communicate ideas, along with explaining things, describing things, and telling stories.

What Makes Up an Argument?

When you argue a point, here are some important parts:

• Understanding Arguments: Knowing what an argument is, whether it's clearly stated or just hinted at. Also, understanding what each person wants to achieve in the discussion.
• Finding the Starting Points: Identifying the main ideas or facts (called premises) that lead to a conclusion.
• Who Needs to Prove It? Deciding who made the first claim and therefore needs to show why their idea should be accepted. This is called the "burden of proof."
• Presenting Your Case: If you have the "burden of proof," you need to gather evidence to convince others. You do this by making strong arguments that are hard to challenge.
• Challenging Others: In a debate, if someone presents their proof, you might need to respond. This means looking for weak points in their argument, questioning their reasons, giving examples that show they might be wrong, or pointing out any mistakes in their logic.

Here's an example:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."

Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In this talk, the first person makes a statement. The second person challenges it. Then, the first person changes their statement to fit their original idea. This kind of exchange could be part of a bigger discussion, like a court case.

How Arguments Are Built

An argument usually has a clear structure:

• It starts with one or more ideas or facts that are assumed to be true. These are called premises.
• Then, there's a way of thinking or reasoning that connects these ideas.
• Finally, there's a conclusion or the main point you're trying to make.

So, every argument has at least one starting idea and one conclusion. Often, people use classical logic to make sure the conclusion truly follows from the starting ideas.

Different Kinds of Conversations

Argumentation often involves people talking, each trying to convince the other. But there are different types of conversations:

• Persuasion Dialogue: This aims to solve disagreements when people have different opinions.
• Negotiation: This tries to solve conflicts of interest by working together and making deals.
• Inquiry: This aims to gain knowledge and solve general lack of understanding.
• Deliberation: This helps people decide what action to take by reaching a group decision.
• Information Seeking: This is when one person asks another for information to learn something new.
• Eristic: This is like a verbal fight, where the main goal is to win over an opponent.

Argumentation and Knowledge

Argumentation theory first started with the idea of foundationalism in philosophy, which looked for the basic truths behind all knowledge. Famous philosophers like Plato and Socrates used a method of questioning to explore ideas.

However, over time, scholars realized that arguments don't always need to come from strict philosophical systems. Thinkers like Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced the idea of "new rhetoric," which was more like how lawyers present evidence and rebuttals in court.

Later, scholars started studying "marketplace argumentation," which means the everyday arguments ordinary people have. This connected argumentation to how knowledge is created in society. This new way of thinking saw that arguments are used to reach convincing conclusions about moral, scientific, or other issues that science alone can't answer.

These new theories, like informal logic and social epistemology, look at how arguments make sense within different communities. They focus on the social reasons behind what we know.

Ways of Studying Argumentation

Scholars in communication often use the term "argumentation," while philosophers might prefer "informal logic." However, experts from many fields now meet at international conferences to discuss these ideas.

Some scholars, like Ralph H. Johnson, think of an "argument" very specifically, as only written discussions where all the starting ideas are clearly stated. Others, like Michael Gilbert, see "argument" more broadly, including spoken words or even nonverbal things like a war memorial or a poster that tries to convince you of something. The philosopher Stephen Toulmin said an argument is anything that tries to get our attention and belief. Most experts fall somewhere in the middle of these two views.

Different Kinds of Arguments

Everyday Conversations

The study of how people talk in everyday life is called conversation analysis (CA). It looks at how people manage disagreements in conversations, especially since conversations naturally prefer agreement.

Arguments in Math

The truth in mathematics has been debated for a long time. Some philosophers, like Frege and Russell, tried to show that math truths come from pure logic. If a math argument can be written using symbolic logic, then it can be checked using accepted rules. An argument in math is considered correct only if it's impossible for its starting ideas to be true and its conclusion to be false.

Arguments in Science

Some thinkers, like Alan G. Gross, believe that science itself is a form of argumentation. They argue that scientific knowledge is created through communication and debate, and it's trustworthy only because its methods of checking facts are reliable. This idea is very different from the original belief that argumentation was based on absolute truths.

Understanding Interpretations

Interpretive argumentation is a discussion where people explore and solve different ways of understanding something, often a text that has more than one meaning. This is important in subjects like literature, linguistics, and philosophy.

Arguments in Law

By Lawyers

Lawyers make legal arguments in court, speaking to a judge or a higher court. They explain the legal reasons why their side should win. These spoken arguments go along with written documents that also present each party's case. A closing argument is the final statement a lawyer makes to the trier of fact, often the jury, after all the evidence has been shown.

By Judges

A judicial opinion is a written explanation from a judge or group of judges that comes with a court order or ruling. It explains the reasons and legal principles behind the decision. It also mentions the decision made to solve the dispute. If there are many judges, it might be a majority opinion (what most judges agree on), a minority opinion opinion (what a few judges think), or a concurring opinion (when judges agree with the result but for different reasons).

Arguments in Politics

Political arguments are used by experts, media commentators, people running for office, and government officials. Citizens also use them in everyday talks to understand political events.

Sometimes, voters don't know much about politics. Samuel L. Popkin called them "low information voters." These voters might make their decisions based on a short news clip or a flyer, even if it doesn't tell the whole story. This can sometimes lead to election results where many people were misled. Fact checkers now work to help fight against false information in politics.

How Psychology Affects Arguments

Psychology has looked at how emotions and other non-logical things influence arguments. For example, studies show that simply repeating an idea many times can be more convincing than using logic. Propaganda often uses repetition. A famous saying, sometimes linked to the Nazi politician Joseph Goebbels, is: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."

Studies also show that how believable or attractive a person is (their charisma) can affect how their arguments are received. This connects argumentation to the study of persuasion.

Some psychologists believe that a syllogism (a type of logical argument with three parts) is the basic way humans reason. They've found that our thinking can be influenced by things like "wishful thinking," where we believe something is likely to happen because we want it to. For example, smokers might think they won't get cancer, or teenagers might drive carelessly.

Theories of Argumentation

Argument Fields

Stephen Toulmin and Charles Arthur Willard developed the idea of "argument fields." For Toulmin, a "field" means a type of discussion where arguments and facts make sense. For Willard, it's like a "community" or "audience." The main idea is that the starting points of arguments get their meaning from the social groups they belong to.

Pragma-dialectics

Scholars in the University of Amsterdam created a strict modern approach called pragma-dialectics. The goal is to set clear rules for discussions that, if followed, lead to reasonable talks and good conclusions.

This theory suggests an ideal model for critical discussion with ten rules. It's not something you expect to see perfectly in real life, but it helps us see when discussions go wrong, like when someone uses a fallacy (a mistake in reasoning).

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst identified four stages of an argumentative discussion:

• Confrontation stage: Where the disagreement or debate question is presented.
• Opening stage: Where everyone agrees on the basic facts, beliefs, and rules for the discussion.
• Argumentation stage: Where people present their reasons for or against a point, following the agreed-upon rules.
• Concluding stage: Where they decide if the main point has stood up to criticism and is justified.

Walton's Logical Argumentation Method

Douglas N. Walton created a theory of logical argumentation with practical methods. These methods help people understand and evaluate arguments in everyday talks and in more formal areas like law or science. His method focuses on what people commit to saying in a conversation, rather than just what they believe. He uses critical questions to test explanations and find weak points in arguments.

Walton's approach sees knowledge as something that can be changed or updated if new evidence comes up. It's based on testing evidence from all sides.

Argumentation in Computers

Structured debates from platforms like Kialo could be used for "artificial deliberative agents" (ADAs) or computational reasoning.

Example of an ADA contributing missing information to a debate via crawled Kialo data and selected based on the prior conversation and crawled argument weight ratings.

Scientists in artificial intelligence (AI) are working on using computers to analyze and create arguments. Argumentation is useful in areas like law and medicine, where simple logic or decision-making rules aren't enough.

There are regular events and journals dedicated to exploring how argumentation and computer science connect. Data from online debate platforms like Kialo has been used to train AI systems, such as BERT. These systems can do things like:

• Extract arguments from text.
• Generate conclusions.
• Assess the quality of arguments.
• Create or participate in debates.
• Suggest viewpoints that might have been missed.
• Help with argumentative writing.
• Evaluate how truthful or convincing a sentence is (like fact-checking).
• Improve chatbots.
• Predict the impact of an argument.
• Classify arguments and predict their stance.

See Also

In Spanish: Teoría de la argumentación para niños

Images for kids

• 

  Two men argue at a political protest in New York City.