CONSTRUCTING REASONING HOW TO BUILD REASONS AND ARGUMENTS USING ATHENA

1
CONSTRUCTING REASONINGHOW TO BUILD REASONS AND
ARGUMENTS USING ATHENA

• Athena 2.0 is a software package supporting
  reasoning and argumentation. Typical uses are
• Support for constructing the understanding of
  philosophical arguments or scientific hypotheses
• Support for building an overview over standpoints
  in an issue of factual, social, moral or
  political complexity
• Support for preparations in argument games, e.g.
  public debates, seminar exercises on board
  meetings, aiming for a decision.
• Below, we will proceed with the following points
• Some of the basic concepts involved in using
  Athena 2.0
• A work process involved in building a single
  argument and producing an argument report.
• _at_ Bertil Rolf

2
SOFTWARE ATHENA THE MAIN IDEAS

• Language is linear. Spoken or written language
  has a temporal or spatial surface structure with
  a linear order.
• Arguments are hierarchical and recursive. A
  thesis can be supported by premises that in their
  turn can be supported by premises.
• Athena helps analyze arguments. Analysis involves
  finding or assigning hierarchical form to spoken
  or written language
• Athena helps synthesize argument. Synthesis
  involves presenting one or several alternative
  theses and premises supporting them.
• Athena helps evaluate arguments. In analysis and
  synthesis, we want to extract or to present the
  best possible argument.

As the defendant had neither motive, nor
opportunity to commit the crime, the only
reasonable conclusion is that he did not do it
3
ARGUMENTATION WHAT IT IS

• Reasoning is a cognitive process occurring when
  we search for a rational or reasonable standpoint
  or decision.
• Argumentation involves a cognitive process of
  reasoning enacted on a social arena, e.g.
  presenting or defending a standpoint.
• Argumentation combines games of cooperation
  (mutual interests dominate) or games of conflict
  (conflicting interests dominate).
• The social settings may vary, e.g. a legal
  process, a sales talk, peace negotiations or a
  defence of a doctoral dissertation.
• The rules of the game differ. Cognitive rules of
  skill blend with social skills.
• It is possible to succeed cognitively and fail
  socially or vice versa.

Argumentation is a verbal and social activity of
reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the
acceptability of a controversial standpoint for
the listener or reader, by putting forward a
constellation of propositions intended to justify
(or refute) the standpoint before a rational
judge. (Eemeren et al.)
4
THE ELEMENTS OF ARGUMENTS

• All arguments consist of one or several
  conclusions, i.e. those theses that the argument
  purports to prove or support. We use premises as
  support.
• An argument structure consists of theses (
  nodes) and relevance relations (lines).
• A large argument tree can contain sub trees
• In a tree, the conclusion(s) or main thesis is
  the uppermost node.The premises are the lower
  nodes of that tree.
• The point of an argument is to show how the
  acceptability of the premises make the conclusion
  also acceptable.
• This is the meaning of saying that the conclusion
  is supported by the premises.

5
UNDERSTANDING OTHERS, KNOWING A TOPIC

• ANALYSING AN ARGUMENT FIELD
• The objective is to gain an overview over the
  arguments concerning a topic, e.g. the
  admissibility of genetically modified organisms.
• The starting point is a large number of texts
  from conflicting sources.
• The end point is an Athena argument tree
  presenting and evaluating the argument(s) in the
  field.
• Several solutions are constructible from the
  field. We often want the most plausible or most
  challenging reconstructions.

• ANALYSING SOMEBODYS ARGUMENT
• The aim is to understand the authors standpoint.
• The starting point is one or several texts
  written by the author.
• The end point is an Athena argument tree
  presenting and evaluating the author's
  argument(s).
• Several solutions are often compatible with the
  authors text. The aim often involves not merely
  what the author actually meant. It can involve a
  reconstruction of the most plausible or most
  challenging argument, i.e what the author should
  have meant.

6
REPRESENTING THESES IN ATHENA

• Start Athena
• Create a new board.
• Create a node.
• Open the node.
• Assign a name, serving as a label or headline.
• Make the label more specific.
• If needed, enter explanatory text in comment.
• Close the node by clicking OK.
• Proceed to add other theses.
• NB Capitals for thesisname makes it visible.

7
CONSTRUCTING SUPPORT RELATIONS

• When you have represented a couple of theses, you
  draw lines to the nodes to represent logical
  relations. Positive support add to the strength
  of the conclusion, negative support detract from
  its strength.
• The support of a conclusion derives from first
  order premises. Their support in turn derives
  from second order premises.
• Athena assigns automatically a symbol e.g. P1P2T1
  to represent the place in the hierarchical
  argument structure.
• Decide whether a subordinate premise is a pro- or
  a contra-argument. Pro-arguments give positive
  support. Contra-arguments give negative support,
  i.e. undermine, a superior conclusion.
• Pro/con is adjusted on each line.
• Contra-arguments have red colour.

8
OVERALL EVALUATION. BEING ROBUST AND WELL
STRUCTURED
Being well structured Is there a main thesis? Is
each premise connected to a higher-level thesis
or sub-premise in the argumentation tree? Can
you draw several important lines of relevance in
the tree? Is the structuring unambiguous or can
another structuring result in other conclusions?
Is there a harmonious structure, relying on
several conjoined premises rather than a single
chain of subordinate premises?

• Being Robust
• Robust argument trees will support their
  conclusions even when new premises are added.
  They are not overthrown by evidence or premises
  we have overlooked.
• There must be no information that would lead us
  to draw another conclusion.
• There must be no information that would lead us
  to abandon the results of our inference.
• Have we carried out a reasonably careful
  investigation in order to ensure that there is no
  such information that would lead us to draw
  another conclusion?

9
EVALUATING RELEVANCE OF SUPPORT

• Relevance indicates how much support a superior
  conclusion maximally can draw from a subordinate
  premise.
• The degree of support is adjusted on the lines or
  by right-clicking the line.
• Strength of relevance is indicated with line
  breadth.
• Relevance value How much strength would a
  superior thesis derive from its subordinate if
  the latter were completely acceptable? How large
  part of subordinate acceptability flows
  upwards?
• NB, we do not need to know the facts, i.e. how
  acceptable the theses are in order to determine
  strength of support.

10
EVALUATING ACCEPTABILITY

• HOW IS IT DONE?
• Is each premise acceptable, both on its own and
  combined with the others?
• Is each factual premise ensured through
• Observations?
• Expert judgement?
• Experiment and test results?
• Is each value or norm firmly established in the
  value system or norm system that is accepted by
  the recipient?
• Are the premises acceptable together or are there
  premises that undermine one another?

• WHAT IS EVALUATED?
• Acceptability is always acceptability for an
  actor with particular background knowledge or
  particular values.
• Acceptability is a measure of how firmly that
  actor is entitled to hold the conviction
  represented by the box.
• The test for acceptability is iterative. It
  starts at some point and proceeds systematically
  through each node in the tree, ending in the main
  conclusion.

11
THE OUTCOME OF EVALUATION

• A complete evaluation results in a tree graph
  with all values assigned.
• The graph represents the users conception of the
  resulting strength of all premises and the
  resulting support for the conclusion.
• A user who has gone through this process will
  represent the way one should make up ones mind
  in a case, based on the material available.

12
FROM REASONING TO ARGUMENTSTATING OR REPORTING
THE CASE

• Selecting which arguments to present. By
  right-clicking on a node, you can hide the
  subordinate branch of the tree.
• Filtering away the worst arguments. By increasing
  the filter threshold, you filter away the worst
  premises. (AR)

13
PRODUCING A REPORT

• When producing a report, you open the report
  wizard and enter the text you prefer.

14
SELECT REPORT TYPE

• You can select the orientation and the content of
  the report.
• Reports will only show the arguments that are not
  hidden and are not filtered away.
• You can select report types.
• All arguments in a list produce a list of
  arguments, suitable for a memorandum.
• Pro et Contra is suitable for checking the
  totality of a standpoints. It produces two lists
  of arguments, one containing all premises of the
  proponent, the other all arguments of the
  opponent.
• Pro aut Contra is suitable for preparing a
  proponent for an argument duel. It shows the best
  initiatives, counterattacks and defences a
  proponent of the main thesis would use.

15
COMMENTING ON THE QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT

• In concluding information, you add your
  reflections on the crucial issues related to the
  argument. These can involve anything from logic
  to rhetoric, related to a certain audience.
• General comments is suitable for the outcome of
  your overall evaluation.
• The General comments rests on four points of
  evaluation structure, robustness, acceptability
  and relevance.
• Help functions ? will remind the user what to
  look for in his/her evaluation.
• By pressing Finish a report is produced.

16
THE REPORT CHOSEN

• The principle for producing the report is
  WYSIWYG. In the previous Show-menu you can switch
  off the visibility of relevance, of acceptability
  or of tree position.
• The report can be printed, saved as HTML or
  copied into a word processor.

17
BONUS FOR THE USER

• FEATURES FACILITATING USE
• Node properties editor enables users to adjust
  all values of all nodes from one window.
• Copy/paste functions enable users to build
  various branches of a tree and put them together.
  
• Select up/select down enable users to copy
  certain branches of a tree.