Hahn

Information about Hahn

Published on January 28, 2008

Author: Vital

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Explaining the Fallacies:  Explaining the Fallacies Implications for the Roles of Probability and Logic in Argumentation Ulrike Hahn Cardiff University Mike Oaksford Birkbeck College London The Fallacies:  The Fallacies Original catalogue Aristotle; additions from middle ages to present time (e.g., Locke) Catalogue of (some) fallacies: equivocation; irrelevance; circularity; consequent; ad verecundium (authority); ad hominem, ad ignorantiam; ad populum; ad misericordiam; ad consequentiam; ad baculum; post hoc ergo propter hoc; slippery slope arguments Fallacies:  Fallacies Circular arguments: God exists, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God. Argument from ignorance: Ghosts exist, because nobody has proven that they don’t Fallacies:  Fallacies Circular arguments: God exists, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God. Argument from ignorance: Ghosts exist, because nobody has proven that they don’t The Question:  The Question why are they fallacious? can single formal account be given? can formal account be given for any individual one? Past Attempts:  Past Attempts Logic as objective standard of validity Classical logics have failed here - fallacies exist in introductory logic texts under header of “informal reasoning fallacies” Past Attempts:  Past Attempts Logic as objective standard of validity Classical logics have failed here - fallacies exist in introductory logic texts under header of “informal reasoning fallacies” The problem: Some fallacies seem logically valid, but nevertheless poor arguments Many have exceptions that don’t seem quite as bad Circularity again..:  Circularity again.. God exists, because God exists Circularity ctd.:  Circularity ctd. God exists, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God Electrons exist because their signature effects can be seen with a particle accelerator A Bayesian Account of the Argument from ignorance:  A Bayesian Account of the Argument from ignorance Ghosts exist, because no-one has proved they don’t This drug is safe, since no-one has found any side effects Both arguments present a conclusion (C) and evidence (e) C: Ghosts exist, This drug is safe e: Nobody has proved Ghosts don’t exist, No evidence that the drug is not safe To calculate the strength of each argument use Bayes’ Theorem: When are they good arguments?:  When are they good arguments? (If drug A were toxic, it would produce toxic effects in legitimate tests) Drug A has not produced toxic effects in such tests Therefore, A is not toxic Polarity: positive vs. negative evidence:  Polarity: positive vs. negative evidence Given: test sensitivity - P(e|T) test specificity - P(¬e|¬T) degree of prior belief in T - P(T) Can derive via Bayes’ theorem: Negative vs. positive test validity: P(¬T|¬e) vs. P(T|e) Test Validity :  Test Validity For prior h, sensitivity n and specificity l, whenever: positive test validity is greater than negative test validity, P(T|e) > P(¬T|¬e). positive argument stronger than argument from ignorance. Sensitivity and Argument Strength:  Sensitivity and Argument Strength Sample Materials (HOB, 2005):  Sample Materials (HOB, 2005) Brenda: Do you think it is beneficial to privatise public transportation? Adam: I am fairly convinced that it is beneficial to privatise public transportation. Brenda: You can be more than fairly convinced; you can be certain that it is beneficial. Adam: Why do you say that? Brenda: Because I read a newspaper interview with the members of a non-governmental research body and they said that it is beneficial considering the improved service quality and the reduction in the overall operating costs. Results:  Results Effects of: polarity/reliability/prior Slide17:  back to ghosts…: Ghosts exist, because nobody has proven that they don’t !!not just neg. evidence but also 2 opposite polarities: not proven (exist) -> not exist vs. not proven( not exist) -> exist Epistemic Closure:  Epistemic Closure not(not p) = p not says (not p) = ? …could say p or nothing at all not says (not p) ≈ says p Modelling Epistemic Closure: Saying Nothing:  Modelling Epistemic Closure: Saying Nothing Sources Either “C,” “¬C,” or they say nothing about C, n Sensitivity = P(“C”|C), Specificity = P(“¬C”|¬C) Closure If closed then P(n) = 0 and P(¬“C”) = P(“¬C”) If not closed P(¬“C”) = P(“¬C”) + P(n) Effects of Varying P(n|C):  Effects of Varying P(n|C) Example: Newspaper reports of secret treaty:  Example: Newspaper reports of secret treaty a: says(exists) -> treaty exists b: NOT says(NOT exists) -> exists c: says(NOT exists) –> NOT exists d: NOT says(exists) – >NOT exists Results (HOB, 2005, Expt. 2):  Results (HOB, 2005, Expt. 2) Model Predictions from Participant Data:  Model Predictions from Participant Data Harris, Hahn & Oaksford (in prep.) Circularity again:  Circularity again God exists, because the Bible says so, and the bible is the word of God Electrons exist because their signature effects can be seen with a particle accelerator Both (equally) logically valid if presupposition is included as explicit premise Circularity again:  Circularity again God exists, because the Bible says so, and the bible is the word of God Electrons exist because their signature effects can be seen with a particle accelerator Both (equally) logically valid if presupposition is included as explicit premise Circularity: A Bayesian Perspective:  Circularity: A Bayesian Perspective Shogenji (2000): probabilistic reconstruction shows some circular arguments can work: need of hypothesis in interpreting the data does not preclude data from increasing posterior belief in hypothesis Hahn & Oaksford (2006, 2007): constraint satisfaction networks, hierarchical Bayesian modelling = testable predictions about strong vs. weak circular arguments - supported by data in Hahn & Oaksford, 2007 Bayesian formalization of self-dependent justification:  Bayesian formalization of self-dependent justification Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling Examples contain: Observation or ‘sense data’ Interpretation or ‘ambiguous data’ Hypothesis Bayesian formalization of self-dependent justification:  Bayesian formalization of self-dependent justification Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling Examples contain: Sense data (3cm tracks cloud chamber) Ambiguous data (trace of electron) Hypothesis (electron exists) Hierarchical Modeling in Bayesian Belief Networks:  Hierarchical Modeling in Bayesian Belief Networks Hierarchical Modeling in Bayesian Belief Networks:  Hierarchical Modeling in Bayesian Belief Networks Hierarchical Modeling in Bayesian Belief Networks:  Hierarchical Modeling in Bayesian Belief Networks P(H|S+) = .86 Slippery Slope Arguments:  Slippery Slope Arguments ‘Legalizing cannabis will lead to increased heroin use’ …a kind of consequentialist argument prevalent in political, legal and moral discourse ...involves probabilities and utilities: maximization of expected utility Experimental tests in Corner, Hahn & Oaksford, 2006 Summary:  Summary A Bayesian, normative reconstruction of core fallacies Exp. evidence that people are sensitive to key variables determining argument strength as defined by Bayesian account Account extends to other fallacies (Hahn & Oaksford, Synthese, 2006) Expands to day-to-day informal reasoning/argument Bayesian analyses of scientific reasoning (e.g., Howson & Urbach, 1989) Bayesian probability as general, normative theory of argument strength? Implications for Logic and Argumentation:  Implications for Logic and Argumentation Bayesian approach succeeds where classical logic failed because can deal with uncertain information can capture inductive inference quantitative conditioning provides rule for dynamic updating, that is, belief revision Slide36:  “Argumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of propositions justifying or refuting the propositions expressed in the standpoint” (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p1) Argumentation is about (rationally) changing people’s beliefs (cf. circularity, paradoxes of material implication) Logic & Argumentation:  Logic & Argumentation Wealth of non-classical logics, but fallacies? Probability logic this needs to preserve key strengths can deal with uncertain information inductive inference conditioning provides rule for dynamic updating, that is, belief revision that is quantitative FOProbabilistic languages such as MEBN, Bayesian Logic Programs Leibniz:  Leibniz “this language will be the greatest instrument of reason,” for “when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, and see who is right” (The Art of Discovery (1685); C, 176 (W, 51)). Thanks to…:  Thanks to… Adam Corner Adam Harris Hatice Bayindir

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Vital

deathdying
29. 01. 2008
0 views

deathdying

eiko 060920 ilc
09. 01. 2008
0 views

eiko 060920 ilc

Zoo Presentation
15. 01. 2008
0 views

Zoo Presentation

Optimism
17. 01. 2008
0 views

Optimism

AttachmentandTempera ment
17. 01. 2008
0 views

AttachmentandTempera ment

gaspump slides
22. 01. 2008
0 views

gaspump slides

05 awards
25. 01. 2008
0 views

05 awards

How to Tie a
04. 02. 2008
0 views

How to Tie a

3 2 ContractAdmin
22. 01. 2008
0 views

3 2 ContractAdmin

Extremophiles
25. 01. 2008
0 views

Extremophiles

Prophecy Club
28. 01. 2008
0 views

Prophecy Club

iss ch23
28. 01. 2008
0 views

iss ch23

SafeStart
30. 01. 2008
0 views

SafeStart

portionslides
07. 02. 2008
0 views

portionslides

gratingsOCTOBER2000
14. 01. 2008
0 views

gratingsOCTOBER2000

sunum ASPNET35
20. 02. 2008
0 views

sunum ASPNET35

Miro3a
26. 02. 2008
0 views

Miro3a

qualitative physics
03. 03. 2008
0 views

qualitative physics

wlan
12. 02. 2008
0 views

wlan

Lewis Goldfrank presentation
14. 03. 2008
0 views

Lewis Goldfrank presentation

SÃlma 29mars Sten Landahl
06. 02. 2008
0 views

SÃlma 29mars Sten Landahl

The Reformers
24. 03. 2008
0 views

The Reformers

SP07Schedule
07. 02. 2008
0 views

SP07Schedule

Guzik ACES Presentation
03. 03. 2008
0 views

Guzik ACES Presentation

2005a 2 Nemchek
27. 03. 2008
0 views

2005a 2 Nemchek

100ags238
08. 04. 2008
0 views

100ags238

CSAH Presentation
14. 04. 2008
0 views

CSAH Presentation

newoaa
17. 04. 2008
0 views

newoaa

Jim Lewis
22. 04. 2008
0 views

Jim Lewis

WH 6 Mesopotamia
13. 02. 2008
0 views

WH 6 Mesopotamia

DanskeArk
23. 04. 2008
0 views

DanskeArk

yeo
07. 05. 2008
0 views

yeo

ASB CMD Brief
02. 05. 2008
0 views

ASB CMD Brief

MISR images Feb2002
02. 05. 2008
0 views

MISR images Feb2002

new ecumenism
13. 01. 2008
0 views

new ecumenism

general ppt
20. 02. 2008
0 views

general ppt

DESI VS SIKHI
04. 02. 2008
0 views

DESI VS SIKHI

DoNots RegionalAEs 000
04. 02. 2008
0 views

DoNots RegionalAEs 000

9th grade guidance plan 1
11. 01. 2008
0 views

9th grade guidance plan 1

NASA Battaglia Hawaii 071107
11. 01. 2008
0 views

NASA Battaglia Hawaii 071107

totopres
21. 03. 2008
0 views

totopres

plewa7 14 2004
16. 01. 2008
0 views

plewa7 14 2004