Coherence and argument structure: An empirical comparison between plausible reasoning and the Bayesian approach to argumentation

Christian Gaviria	Universidad de los Andes
William Jimenez-Leal	Universidad de Los Andes

Abstract

Plausible reasoning has been proposed as an alternative to deductive and inductive norms of argument evaluation in informal logic. In this paper, we present the first systematic empirical contrast between the Bayesian account of argumentation and a plausible reasoning model. Results suggest that the Bayesian approach to argumentation provides a more precise picture of how people evaluate the strength of appeals to witness testimony when considering coherence and argument structure as relevant factors.

Files

Coherence and argument structure: An empirical comparison between plausible reasoning and the Bayesian approach to argumentation (238 KB)