Abstract
This paper discusses the validation of abstract formal or
computational theories of argumentation as normative theories of argumentation. Three validation approaches are discussed: instantiation
with a more concrete theory of argumentation (theory-based validation),
validating with intuitions about concrete examples (intuition-based validation) and comparing the theory with how humans actually argue (empirical validation). It is argued that intuition-based validation can be
useful for validating structured but not for validating abstract accounts
of argumentation, that empirical validation can be used at all levels of
abstraction but at best as a partial validation method, and that a full
validation of abstract accounts of argumentation should include theorybased validation. A case study of the ‘standard’ theory of bipolar frameworks reveals that it is to a large extent still awaiting validation as a
good theory of rational argumentation.
computational theories of argumentation as normative theories of argumentation. Three validation approaches are discussed: instantiation
with a more concrete theory of argumentation (theory-based validation),
validating with intuitions about concrete examples (intuition-based validation) and comparing the theory with how humans actually argue (empirical validation). It is argued that intuition-based validation can be
useful for validating structured but not for validating abstract accounts
of argumentation, that empirical validation can be used at all levels of
abstraction but at best as a partial validation method, and that a full
validation of abstract accounts of argumentation should include theorybased validation. A case study of the ‘standard’ theory of bipolar frameworks reveals that it is to a large extent still awaiting validation as a
good theory of rational argumentation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Computational Models of Natural Argument 2020 |
| Subtitle of host publication | Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument co-located with the 8th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2020) Perugia, Italy (and online), September 8th, 2020. |
| Editors | Floriana Grasso, Nancy L. Green, Jody Schneider, Simon Wells |
| Publisher | CEUR WS |
| Pages | 21-30 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Volume | 2669 |
| Publication status | Published - 2020 |
Publication series
| Name | CEUR Workshop Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Publisher | CEUR |
| Volume | 2669 |
| ISSN (Electronic) | 1613-0073 |
Keywords
- Validating abstract argumentation theories
- Bipolar argumentation frameworks