AI News, How artificial intelligence could help us to win arguments

How artificial intelligence could help us to win arguments

In the face of such challenges, skills of critical thinking are more vital now than they have ever been – the ability to judge and assess evidence quickly and efficiently, to step outside our echo chamber and think about things from alternative points of view, to integrate information, often in teams, balance arguments on either side and reach robust, defensible conclusions.

The Centre for Argument Technology (ARG-tech) at the University of Dundee is all about taking and extending theories from philosophy, linguistics and psychology that tell us about how humans argue, how they disagree, and how they reach consensus – and making those theories a starting point for building artificial intelligence tools that model, recognise, teach and even take part in human arguments.

But getting such data is really tough: it takes highly trained analysts hours of painstaking work to tease apart the way in which arguments have been put together from just a few minutes of discourse.

More than 10 years ago, ARG-tech turned to the BBC Radio 4 programmeMoral Mazeas an example of “gold standard” debate: rigorous, tight argument on emotive, topical issues, with careful and measured moderation.

On the other is the opportunity to teach those skills explicitly: a Test Your Argument prototype deployed on the BBC Taster site uses examples from the Moral Maze to explore a small number of arguing skills and lets you pit your wits directly against the machine.

Much more exciting is the potential to have AI software contribute to human discussion – recognising types of arguments, critiquing them, offering alternative views and probing reasons are all things that are now within the reach of AI.

And it is here that the real value lies – having teams of arguers, some human, some machine, working together to deal with demanding, complex situations from intelligence analysis to business management.

How AI can make us better atarguing

In the face of such challenges, skills of critical thinking are more vital now than they have ever been – the ability to judge and assess evidence quickly and efficiently, to step outside our echo chamber and think about things from alternative points of view, to integrate information, often in teams, balance arguments on either side and reach robust, defensible conclusions.

The Centre for Argument Technology (ARG-tech) at the University of Dundee is all about taking and extending theories from philosophy, linguistics and psychology that tell us about how humans argue, how they disagree, and how they reach consensus – and making those theories a starting point for building artificial intelligence tools that model, recognise, teach and even take part in human arguments.

But getting such data is really tough: it takes highly trained analysts hours of painstaking work to tease apart the way in which arguments have been put together from just a few minutes of discourse.

More than 10 years ago, ARG-tech turned to the BBC Radio 4 programme, Moral Maze, as an example of “gold-standard” debate: rigorous, tight argument on emotive, topical issues, with careful and measured moderation.

On the other is the opportunity to teach those skills explicitly: a Test Your Argument prototype deployed on the BBC Taster site uses examples from the Moral Maze to explore a small number of arguing skills and lets you pit your wits directly against the machine.

Much more exciting is the potential to have AI software contribute to human discussion – recognising types of arguments, critiquing them, offering alternative views and probing reasons are all things that are now within the reach of AI.

And it is here that the real value lies – having teams of arguers, some human, some machine, working together to deal with demanding, complex situations from intelligence analysis to business management.

Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning;

It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.[1] Argumentation includes deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures.[2] It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal.[3] This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests—or choose to change them—in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.

A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.

David Mortensen's 'Logic and Marketplace Argumentation' Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 143–150.[5][6] This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge.[7] Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty.

In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer.

Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, 'non-philosophical' argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields.

Others (such as Michael Gilbert) construe the term 'argument' broadly, to include spoken and even nonverbal discourse, for instance the degree to which a war memorial or propaganda poster can be said to argue or 'make arguments'.

Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.[8] It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right.

Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.

Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Begriffsschrift, 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths.[9] The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica.

It is possible for a media sound-bite or campaign flier to present a political position for the incumbent candidate that completely contradicts the legislative action taken in the Capitol on behalf of the constituents.

It may only take a small percentage of the overall voting group who base their decision on the inaccurate information, a voter block of 10 to 12%, to swing an overall election result.

A central line of this way of thinking is that logic is contaminated by psychological variables such as 'wishful thinking', in which subjects confound the likelihood of predictions with the desirability of the predictions.

Stephen Toulmin and Charles Arthur Willard have championed the idea of argument fields, the former drawing upon Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion of language games, (Sprachspiel) the latter drawing from communication and argumentation theory, sociology, political science, and social epistemology.

For Toulmin, the term 'field' designates discourses within which arguments and factual claims are grounded.[13] For Willard, the term 'field' is interchangeable with 'community', 'audience', or 'readership'.[14] Along similar lines, G.

Thomas Goodnight has studied 'spheres' of argument and sparked a large literature created by younger scholars responding to or using his ideas.[15] The general tenor of these field theories is that the premises of arguments take their meaning from social communities.[16] Field studies might focus on social movements, issue-centered publics (for instance, pro-life versus pro-choice in the abortion dispute), small activist groups, corporate public relations campaigns and issue management, scientific communities and disputes, political campaigns, and intellectual traditions.[17] In the manner of a sociologist, ethnographer, anthropologist, participant-observer, and journalist, the field theorist gathers and reports on real-world human discourses, gathering case studies that might eventually be combined to produce high-order explanations of argumentation processes.

In an attempt to provide solutions to the problems of absolutism and relativism, Toulmin attempts throughout his work to develop standards that are neither absolutist nor relativist for assessing the worth of ideas.

In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments: The first three elements 'claim', 'data', and 'warrant' are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad 'qualifier', 'backing', and 'rebuttal' may not be needed in some arguments.

Doug Walton developed a distinctive philosophical theory of logical argumentation built around a set of practical methods to help a user identify, analyze and evaluate arguments in everyday conversational discourse and in more structured areas such as debate, law and scientific fields.[19] There are four main components: argumentation schemes,[20] dialogue structures, argument mapping tools, and formal argumentation systems.

The method uses the notion of commitment in dialogue as the fundamental tool for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation rather than the notion of belief.[21] Commitments are statements that the agent has expressed or formulated, and has pledged to carry out, or has publicly asserted.

The dialogue framework uses critical questioning as a way of testing plausible explanations and finding weak points in an argument that raise doubt concerning the acceptability of the argument.

Walton's logical argumentation model takes a different view of proof and justification from that taken in the dominant epistemology in analytical philosophy, which is based on a justified true belief framework.[22] On the logical argumentation approach, knowledge is seen as form of belief commitment firmly fixed by an argumentation procedure that tests the evidence on both sides, and use standards of proof to determine whether a proposition qualifies as knowledge.

Computational argumentation systems have found particular application in domains where formal logic and classical decision theory are unable to capture the richness of reasoning, domains such as law and medicine.

In Elements of Argumentation, Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter show how classical logic-based techniques can be used to capture key elements of practical argumentation.[23][24] Within Computer Science, the ArgMAS workshop series (Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems), the CMNA workshop series,[25] and now the COMMA Conference,[26] are regular annual events attracting participants from every continent.

How artificial intelligence could help us to win arguments

In the face of such challenges, skills of critical thinking are more vital now than they have ever been – the ability to judge and assess evidence quickly and efficiently, to step outside our echo chamber and think about things from alternative points of view, to integrate information, often in teams, balance arguments on either side and reach robust, defensible conclusions.

The Centre for Argument Technology (ARG-tech) at the University of Dundee is all about taking and extending theories from philosophy, linguistics and psychology that tell us about how humans argue, how they disagree, and how they reach consensus – and making those theories a starting point for building artificial intelligence tools that model, recognise, teach and even take part in human arguments.

But getting such data is really tough: it takes highly trained analysts hours of painstaking work to tease apart the way in which arguments have been put together from just a few minutes of discourse.

More than 10 years ago, ARG-tech turned to the BBC Radio 4 programmeMoral Mazeas an example of “gold standard” debate: rigorous, tight argument on emotive, topical issues, with careful and measured moderation.

On the other is the opportunity to teach those skills explicitly: a Test Your Argument prototype deployed on the BBC Taster site uses examples from the Moral Maze to explore a small number of arguing skills and lets you pit your wits directly against the machine.

Much more exciting is the potential to have AI software contribute to human discussion – recognising types of arguments, critiquing them, offering alternative views and probing reasons are all things that are now within the reach of AI.

And it is here that the real value lies – having teams of arguers, some human, some machine, working together to deal with demanding, complex situations from intelligence analysis to business management.

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

Use an organizational structure that arranges the argument in a way that will make sense to the reader.

Warrant (also referred to as a bridge): Explanation of why or how the data supports the claim, the underlying assumption that connects your data to your claim.

Including a well-thought-out warrant or bridge is essential to writing a good argumentative essay or paper.

If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your thesis your readers may not make a connection between the two or they may draw different conclusions.

How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2

Before we dive into the big questions of philosophy, you need to know how to argue properly. We'll start with an overview of philosophical reasoning and ...

How to win an argument

Arguments are unavoidable. However, you can go into one knowing you have a good chance of making your point when you are armed with this advice.

How To Handle A Bad Temper | 9 Tips To Control your Anger

Alpha M. Confidence Course: Subscribe To Alpha M

Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

Why do we argue? To out-reason our opponents, prove them wrong, and, most of all, to win! ... Right? Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen shows how our most ...

5 Common Phrases That Kill Your Charisma

Discover The 4 Emotions You Need To Make a Killer First Impression: 5 Common Phrases That Kill Your Charisma How To Win Any ..

Learning to lose to learn -- a funny thing about arguments: Dan Cohen at TEDxColbyCollege

Dan Cohen is a Colby Alumnus and philosophy professor. He is an expert in argumentation theory, the philosophy of metaphors and language theory.

How Can You Change Somebody's Opinion?

Need to change someone's mind this Thanksgiving? We'll help you win an argument! CHECK OUT Vubble: ...

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation

This tutorial defines the Toulmin Model of Argumentation and briefly discusses how to use this model to both create and analyze arguments.

Skills for Healthy Romantic Relationships | Joanne Davila | TEDxSBU

People may know what a healthy romantic relationship looks like, but most don't know how to get one. Psychologist and researcher Joanne Davila describes ...

Practice 7 - Engaging in Argument from Evidence

Science and Engineering Practice 7: Engaging in Argument from Evidence Paul Andersen explains the importance of argumentation in improving both ...