Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making

Abstract

Hamblin distinguished between formal and descriptive dialectic. Formal normative models of deliberation dialogue have been strongly emphasized as argumentation frameworks in computer science. But making such models of deliberation applicable to real natural language examples has reached a point where the descriptive aspect needs more interdisciplinary work. The new formal and computational models of deliberation dialogue that are being built in computer science seem to be closely related to some already existing and very well established computing technologies such as problem solving and decision making, but whether or how dialectical argumentation can be helpful to support these systems remains an open question. The aim of this paper is to examine some real examples of argumentation that seem to hover on the borderlines between deliberation, problem solving and decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. 1.

    See transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/invisible-universe.html.

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark, and Sally Jackson. 2005. Technology, interaction, and design. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anand, Paul. 1993. Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson, Katie. 2005. What Should We Do? Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD Thesis. University of Liverpool. https://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~katie/ThesisFinal.pdf.

  4. Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152: 157–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-3488-2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 855–874.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Douglas Walton. 2013. Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argument and Computation 2: 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.708670.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon, Trevor. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Black, Elisabeth, and Anthony Hunter. 2009. An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19: 173–209.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Black, Elizabeth, and Katie Atkinson. 2009. Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 867–874.

  10. Black, Elizabeth, and Katie Atkinson. 2011. Agreeing what to do. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6614, ed. P. McBurney, I. Rahwan, and S. Parsons, 12–30. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bransford, John D., and Barry S. Stein. 1993. The IDEAL Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity, 2nd ed. New York: WH Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brewka, Gerhard, and Thomas F. Gordon. 2014. How to buy a Porsche: An approach to defeasible decision making. In Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics. Seattle, Washington, 28–38.

  13. Churchman, C.West. 1971. The design of inquiring systems: Basic Concepts of systems and Organization. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erol, Kutluhan, James Hendler, and Dana S. Nau. 1995. HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1123–1128.

  15. Gordon, Thomas F. 2010. An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C.W. Tindale. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon, Thomas F. 2015. Still craving a Porsche. In Advances in knowledge representation, logic programming, and abstract argumentation: essays dedicated to Gerhard Brewka on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 356–359. Vol. 9060: Springer.

  17. Gordon, Thomas F. 2018. Defining Argument Weighing Functions. IFColog Journal of Logics and their Applications 5(3): 747–773.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gordon, Thomas F., and Douglas Walton. 2016. Formalizing balancing arguments. In Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, ed. P. Baroni, T.F. Gordon, and T. Scheffler, 327–338. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gordon, Thomas F., Horst Friedrich, and Douglas Walton. 2018. Representing argumentation schemes with Constraint Handling Rules (CHR). Argument and Computation 9(2): 91–119. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-180039.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grasso, Floriana. 2015. A case for motivational argumentation. In Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation: Argumentation and Reasoned Action, Vol. 2 http://ecargument.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ECA_Lisbon_2015_BOA.pdf.

  21. Hamblin, Charles. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hohmann, Hanns. 1989. The dynamics of stasis: Classical rhetorical theory and modern legal argumentation. American Journal of Jurisprudence 34: 171–197.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hulstijn, Joris, and Leendert van der Torre. 2004. Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Non-monotonic Reasoning Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision, 212–218.

  24. Jacobs, Scott. 1986. How to make an argument from examples in discourse analysis. In Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes, ed. D.G. Ellis and W.A. Donohue, 149–168. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Klein, Mark. 2017. Towards crowd-scale deliberation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2987624.

  26. Klein, Mark, and Luca Iandoli. 2008. Supporting Collaborative Deliberation Using a Large-Scale Argumentation System: The MIT Collaboratorium. SSRN Electronic Journal MIT Sloan, Research Paper No. 4691-08. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1099082 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1099082.

  27. Kok, Eric M., Ch. John-Jules, Henry Prakken Meyer, and Gerard A.W. Vreeswijk. 2011. A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6614, ed. P. McBurney, I. Rahwan, and S. Parsons, 31–48. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leon, Marianthi, and Alice Toniolo. 2015. Analysis of collaborative design and decision making through argumentation applied for pre-BIM stages. Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design, Construction and Operation 149: 217–228. https://doi.org/10.2495/BIM150191.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mason, Richard O. 1969. A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning. Management Science 15: 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.15.8.b403.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McBurney, Peter, David Hitchcock, and Simon Parsons. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McBurney, Peter, and Simon Parsons. 2002. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3): 315–334.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Medellin-Gasque, Rolando, Katie Atkinson, Peter McBurney, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2011. Arguments over co-operative plans. In Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7132, ed. S. Modgil, N. Oren, and F. Toni, 50–66. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mitroff, Ian I., James R. Emshoff, and Ralph H. Kilmann. 1979. Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving. Management Science 25(6): 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.25.6.583.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mitroff, Ian, and Ralph Kilmann. 1978. On integrating behavioral and philosophical systems: Towards a unified theory of problem solving. Annual Series in Sociology 1: 207–236.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Munier, Nolberto, Eloy Hontoria, and Fernando Jiménez-Sáez. 2019. Strategic approach in multi-criteria decision making: A practical guide for complex scenarios. In International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02726-1.

  37. Ouerdane, Wassila, Yannis Dimopoulos, Konstantinos Liapis, and Pavlos Mora. 2011. Towards Automating Decision Aiding through Argumentation. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 18(5–6): 289–309.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Poole, David L., and Alan K. Mackworth. 2010. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Prakken, Henry. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Prakken, Henry, and Giovanni Sartor. 2009. A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 223–253. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Farnham.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rahwan and Amgoud. 2007. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Nicolas Maudet, Simon Parsons, and Iyad Rahwan, editors, ArgMAS, volume 4766 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 74–90.

  42. Reed, Chris. 1998. Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, 246–253. (ICMAS98). Paris: IEEE Press.

  43. Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. 1995. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Steele, Katie, and Orri H. Stefánsson. 2015. Decision Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/decision-theory/.

  45. Stumpf, Simone C., and Janet T. McDonnell. 2002. Talking about team framing: using argumentation to analyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes. Design Studies 23(1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00020-5.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tang, Yuqing, Timothy J. Norman, and Simon Parsons. 2009. A model for integrating dialogue and the execution of joint plans. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 883–890.

  47. Toni, Francesca. 2008. Assumption-based argumentation for epistemic and practical reasoning. In Computable Models of the Law. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4884, ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino, 185–202. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Toniolo, Alice. 2013. Models of Argument for Deliberative Dialogue in Complex Domains. University of Aberdeen. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, UK.

  49. Toniolo, Alice, Timothy J. Norman, and Katia Sycara. 2012. An empirical study of argumentation schemes for deliberative dialogue. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 242: 756–761.

  50. Van der Weide, Tom, 2011. Arguing to Motivate Decisions. PhD Thesis. Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/210788.

  51. Van Eemeren, Frans H. 2017. Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship. Informal Logic 37(4): 322–350.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Walton, Douglas. 2015. Goal-Based Reasoning for Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Walton, Douglas N. 1991. Critical faults and fallacies of questioning. Journal of Pragmatics 15(4): 337–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90035-V.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Walton, Douglas, and Erik C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic 36(4): 523–562. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Walton, Douglas, and Alice Toniolo. 2016. Deliberation, practical reasoning and problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation ed. P. Bondy and L. Benacquista, Windsor, ON, 2016. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/16DelibPR.pdf.

  59. Walton, Douglas, Alice Toniolo, and Timothy J. Norman. 2014. Missing phases of deliberation dialogue for real applications. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems.

  60. Walton, Douglas, Alice Toniolo, and Timothy J. Norman. 2016. Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances. Argument and Computation 7: 155–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-160009.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Yao, Shengji. 2007. Experimental Approaches for Understanding Conceptual Design Activities. Quebec: Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for Insight Grant 435-2012-0104: The Carneades Argumentation System. Part of this work was supported by the Scottish Informatics and Computer Science Alliance.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walton, D., Toniolo, A. & Norman, T.J. Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making. Argumentation 34, 163–205 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09497-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deliberation dialogue
  • Typology of deliberation
  • Computational models
  • Changing the issue