← Back to catalogue
Research draft

argument

vr.tr.argument · INF.KNW

Let an agent analyse arguments by structure, validity, soundness and fallacies, fairly and without taking sides on contested conclusions.

Thing Registry Information and virtual systems

Research draft, second pass

A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.

written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify

Researched by: Claude

Purpose and description

Let an agent analyse arguments by structure, validity, soundness and fallacies, fairly and without taking sides on contested conclusions.

A set of statements in which some (premises) are offered as reasons for another (the conclusion), studied in logic and rhetoric; forms include deductive syllogisms, inductive and analogical arguments, and philosophical arguments.

What it is for: Reasoning, persuasion, proof and critical thinking.

It can be identify premises and conclusion; test validity and soundness; spot fallacies; present opposing arguments fairly.

Distinguishing features

Premises support a conclusion

Deductive or non-deductive

Validity differs from truth

Can be reconstructed and evaluated

What it looks like

Chains of statements in speech or text.

How it is recognised

Premises and conclusion markers such as therefore

Forms such as syllogisms

Argument in the sense of a quarrel is another sense

Related models

is a kind of - category

discourse

is studied by - fields

logic and rhetoric

uses - reasoning

inference

is confused with - another sense

quarrel

In practice

Families and kinds

deductive arguments and syllogisms

inductive arguments

abductive arguments

arguments by analogy

philosophical arguments

Failure modes and hazards

Straw-manning opposing views

Confusing validity with truth

Taking sides on contested religious or political conclusions

Also called

syllogismphilosophical argumentsymmetry argumentQuinque viaescientific evidence for the existence of GodClosed circlereductio ad absurdumsophismheuristic argumentArgumentum a fortiorifallacyargument from silenceappeal to naturecounterargumenthypercritical methodontological argumentargument from analogyPractical argumentsteleological argumentregress argumentappeal to consequencesstraw man argumenthypothetical syllogismpolysyllogismBarococategorical syllogismenthymemedisjunctive syllogismbaraliptonProsleptic syllogismstatistical syllogismepisyllogismmoney pumpwhataboutismA maiore ad minusmultiple comparisons probleminconsistency fallacyhot-hand fallacygenetic fallacylogical-linguistic fallacy

+84

Where this came from

wikidata · CC0 1.0

Source repository Registry entry point

Also registered as vr.tr.argument-cognition

Drafted structure

Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.

Structure Parts.

Structure reveals reasoning.

Parts

Premises and conclusion.

Parts

Structure.

  1. What are the premises and the conclusion? definition
  2. Are there hidden premises? boundary

Form

Type.

Form

Argument form.

  1. Is it deductive, inductive or abductive? definition
  2. Which named form does it follow? definition
Evaluation Quality.

Evaluation needs criteria.

Validity

Logical form.

Validity

Validity and strength.

  1. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? boundary
  2. How strong is the support? measurement

Soundness

Truth of premises.

Soundness

Soundness.

  1. Are the premises true or well supported? provenance
  2. What evidence backs them? provenance
Fallacies Errors.

Fallacies mislead.

Identify

Common fallacies.

Identify

Fallacies.

  1. Does the argument commit a known fallacy? boundary
  2. Which one? definition

Repair

Improvement.

Repair

Repair.

  1. How could the argument be strengthened? action
  2. What would a counterargument be? definition
Fairness Balance.

Arguments deserve fair treatment.

Charity

Strongest version.

Charity

Principle of charity.

  1. Is the argument presented in its strongest form? boundary
  2. Are opposing arguments included? boundary

Contested topics

Neutrality.

Contested

Contested conclusions.

  1. Is the conclusion religiously or politically contested? boundary
  2. Are views attributed rather than endorsed? boundary

What the second pass must settle

  • Should argument forms be separate entries?
  • How should fallacies be linked?
  • How should contested arguments be presented?
Draft as JSON