Empirical cognitive studies about formal argumentation

Cerutti, Federico ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0755-0358, Cramer, Marcos, Guillaume, Mathieu, Hadoux, Emmanuel, Hunter, Anthony and Polberg, Sylwia ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0811-0226 2021. Empirical cognitive studies about formal argumentation. Gobbay, Dov, Giacomin, Massimiliano, Simari, Guillermo and Thimm, Matthias, eds. Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Volume 2, Vol. 2. College Publications, p. 851.

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

The evaluation of the adequacy of approaches to formal argumentation is often done through instantiations with other established formalisms, such as logic programming or non-monotonic logic. Furthermore, new developments are frequently motivated with examples of use cases that call for the additional features. While such evaluation approaches might be useful and technically sound, they often fail to show to what degree and under what circumstances they reflect human reasoning. In order to address this challenge, in recent years multiple empirical cognitive studies have been conducted to test the relationship between human behaviour and the formal models of abstract and structured argumentation. In this chapter we describe, compare and discuss these studies, taking into account their different methodological approaches. Furthermore we discuss their relevance and potential benefits for formal argumentation, and we review various open questions that are left for future research in this area.

Item Type:	Book Section
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Computer Science & Informatics
Publisher:	College Publications
ISBN:	9781848903364
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	20 March 2023
Last Modified:	22 Aug 2023 09:15
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/157848

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item