Abstract
This chapter defines the key notions of evidence and argument to prepare the way for the subsequent chapters. It uses a simple and intuitive example to motivate the reader and to explain how the modeling of the notions of evidence and argument in the subsequent chapters will progress. This chapter is built around the Sherlock Holmes case of the Study in Scarlet written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to illustrate Holmes’ method of using evidence to arrive at a conclusion by a series of steps by which the evidence accumulates. It uses this example (1) to explain and show how both arguments and explanations contain reasoning, (2) to show how arguments and explanations are woven together in evidential reasoning, (3) to introduce the form of argument called inference to the best explanation, (4) and to show the importance of this form of reasoning for the study of evidential reasoning and argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
According to Martin Kemp (private email), it is best not to call him ‘da Vinci’, which was not a stand-alone surname at this time.
References
Andriessen, J., and B. Schwarz. 2009. Argumentative design. In Argumentation and education, ed. N. Muller Mirza and A. Perret-Clermont, 145–174. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, M. 2003. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Arguing to learn, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers, 47–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Berland, L.K., and B.J. Reiser. 2008. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education 93(1): 26–55.
Birdsell, D.S., and L. Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 1–10.
Doyle, A.C. 1932. The complete Sherlock Holmes: The memorial edition. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran & Co.
Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–357.
Dwyer, C.P., M.J. Hogan, and I. Stewart. 2013. An examination of the effects of argument mapping on students’ memory and comprehension performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity 8: 11–24.
Gigerenzer, G., P.M. Todd, and ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harman, G. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review 74: 88–95.
Hintikka, J., and M.B. Hintikka. 1982. Sherlock Holmes confronts modern logic: Towards a theory of information seeking through questioning. In Argumentation: Approaches to theory formation, ed. E.M. Barth and J.L. Martens, 55–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hoffman, M. 2011. Cognitive effects of argument visualization tools. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 1–12. Windsor: OSSA.
Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kowalski, R., and M. Sergot. 1986. A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4(1): 67–95.
Macagno, F., and A. Konstantinidou. 2013. What students’ arguments can tell us: using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation 27(3): 225–243.
Nussbaum, E.M. 2008. Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33(3): 345–359.
Nussbaum, E.M. 2011. Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist 46(2): 84–106.
Nussbaum, E.M., and O.V. Edwards. 2011. Critical questions and argument strategems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences 20(3): 443–488.
Pardo, M.S., and R.J. Allen. 2008. Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27(3): 223–268.
Peirce, C.S. 1965. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In Elements of logic, vol. 2, ed. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Prakken, H. 2003. Logical dialectics: The missing link between deductivism and pragma-dialectics. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren et al., 857–860. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Prakken, H., C. Reed, and D. Walton. 2003. Argumentation schemes and generalisations. In Reasoning about evidence, 32–41. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. Edinburgh/New York: ACM Press.
Sandoval, W., and B.J. Reiser. 2004. Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education 88(1): 345–372.
Schank, R.C. 1986. Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.
Schiappa, E. 1995. Warranting assent: Case studies in argument evaluation. Albany: SUNY Press.
Schiappa, E. 2002. Sophisticated modernism and the continuing importance of argument evaluation. In Arguing communication and culture: Selected papers from the 12th NCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 51–58. Washington, D.C: National Communication Association.
Schum, D.A. 1994. Evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. New York: Wiley.
Scriven, M. 2002. The limits of explication. Argumentation 16(1): 47–57.
Walton, D. 2006. Character evidence: An abductive theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Walton, D. 2010. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30(2): 159–184.
Walton, D., and B. Schafer. 2006. Arthur, George and the mystery of the missing motive: Towards a theory of evidentiary reasoning about motives. International Commentary on Evidence 4(2): 1–47.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (2016). Introduction to Argument and Explanation. In: Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19625-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19626-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)