Open risk assessment Lecture 5: Argumentation

1. Mikko Pohjola KTL, Finland Open risk assessment Lecture 5: Argumentation

2. Lecture contents • Argumentation theory: Pragma-dialectics • Argumentation in Open Assessment • Summary

3. Pragma-dialectics • A systematic theory of argumentation • Created by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, University of Amsterdam • "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 one or more propositions to justify this standpoint.”

4. Basic building blocks of argumentation • Protagonist • The party that expresses a standpoint and is ready to defend that standpoint with arguments • Antagonist • The party that expresses doubts and/or counterarguments on the standpoint expressed by the protagonist

5. Basic building blocks of argumentation • Standpoint • A statement expressed by the protagonist, representing his/her view on some matter • The focal point of an argumentative discussion • Argument • A defensive or attacking expression in relation to the standpoint or another argument • Premise • Assumption presumed true within the argumentative discourse • Explicit or implicit, but premises likely to be perceived differently by the protagonist and the antagonist should be agreed upon before starting an argumentation

6. Ideal model for a critical discussion • Confrontation • where the parties agree on a difference of opinion • Opening • where the parties agree on the roles (protagonist/antagonist), rules and starting points • Argumentation • where the protagonist defends his/her standpoint by arguments and the antagonist either expresses doubts or attacks the standpoint/arguments • Concluding • where the parties assess to which extent they have reached a resolution and in whose favor, implying that one of the parties must retract standpoint (the protagonist) or doubt (the antagonist)

7. Structure of argumentation • Single argumentation • Single argument either defending or attacking a standpoint • Multiple argumentation • More than one argument on the same level • All defending or attacking a standpoint • Each argument is an alternative to the others (each provides support on its own) • Coordinative argumentation • Consisting of more than one argument on the same level • All defending or attacking a standpoint • Arguments constitute the defense together (constitutes support as a whole) • Subordinative argumentation • consisting of several levels of arguments • each is linked and supports the argument/standpoint on the level above (constitutes support as a whole)

8. General guidelines for argumentation • First of all, the parties must have the will to try to achieve the goal of the discourse • The parties should also follow the communication principle • i.e. their communication should match as well as possible to the purpose of their communication • The communication should be clear, sincere, efficient and to the point • The parties should not use any dubious means in advancing their position in the discourse • in other words: not violate the ten rules for a critical discussion

9. Rules for a critical discussion • Freedom rule • Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints • Burden of proof rule • A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so • Standpoint rule • A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party • Relevance rule • A party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint • Unexpressed premise rule • A party may not disown a premise that has been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party

10. Rules for a critical discussion • Starting point rule • A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point • Argument scheme rule • A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied • Validity rule • A party may only use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises • Closure rule • A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its doubt about the standpoint • Usage rule • A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible

11. Argumentation as knowledge creation • Critical and explicit scrutiny of statements • Reformulation of statements according to critique • Creating shared understanding • Attacking and defending statements • Agreeing upon premises • Explicating premises • Falsification of hypotheses

12. Argumentation in Open Assessment • An application of pragma-dialectics • Systematic theory of argumentation • Formal information structure for targeting argumentation • Computer-aid for virtual argumentation within unorganized groups and formal documentation of communication • Argumentation forms an important part of assessment product information content • Improvement of actual content • Documentation of reasoning behind the development

13. Argumentation in Open Assessment • In participatory knowledge-intensive work disputes often arise • Formal argumentation is a means for dealing with disputes • Disputes are possibilities for knowledge creation and creating shared understanding • Disputes highlight the points of improvement • Formal argumentation helps in coming to conclusions

14. Argumentation in Open Assessment • Falsification of a hypothesis • A variable (or assessment) is a hypothesis about a certain part of reality • Expressed standpoints (stated disputes) are attempts to falsify the hypothesis • Arguments defend or attack the standpoint • The hypothesis remains valid until it is conclusively falsified • The protagonist of a falsifying standpoint has the burden of proof for the standpoint • A falsified hypothesis is modified or a new hypothesis is created according to the needs explicated through argumentation

15. Argumentation in Open Assessment • Argumentation is always targeted to a specific relevant point within the information structure • A particular assessment or variable • A particular attribute of an assessment or variable • A particular piece of information within a particular attribute • A standpoint must be relevant within the scope of the object that it relates to • Arguments must be relevant in relation to the standpoint

16. Argumentation in Open Assessment • Formal argumentation is a means for explicating communication in Open Assessment • Documentation of informal discussions and comments • Formalization of informal discussions and comments • Argumentation analysis (a posteriori) • Discussion as formal argumentation (a priori) • Initiating explicit communication by a statement of a dispute (explicit or implicit) • Example: Hämeenkyrö MSWI

17. Argumentation in Open Assessment • Templates for formal discussions • Discussion template on discussion page • Dispute • Outcome • Argumentation • Attacking argument • Defending argument • Comment • signature • Discussion/Resolution link for targeting the argumentation to a relevant point within the information structure

22. Argumentation in Open Assessment • Argumentation is always about a standpoint • The dispute statement should be clearly formulated • No ambiguous comments or questions • An argument or standpoint is considered valid unless it has been successfully attacked • Defending arguments support statements they refer to • Attacking arguments invalidate statements they refer to • If an attacking argument is attacked the original statement becomes re-validated

26. Summary • Pragma-dialectics is a systematic theory of argumentation • Formal argumentation is a suitable means for: • Dealing with disputes rising in Open Assessments • Explicit documentation of communication in Open Assessments • Targeting knowledge creation efforts • Templates for conducting and documenting argumentation in wiki • Argumentation requires a bit of effort, but is worthwhile