This paper offers insights into the nature and design of critical questions as they are found in argumentation schemes. In the first part of the paper, I address some general concerns regarding their purpose and formulation. These include a discussion of their evaluative function, their relationship with the patterns of reasoning they accompany, as well as the differing formulations of critical questions currently on offer. I argue that the purpose of critical questions for humans ought to be to provide the (...) means for a scalar evaluation of the reasoning at hand. To do so, critical questions should be closely paired with individual premises in the accompanying pattern of reasoning and be open-ended. Doing so allows the roles of raising considerations relevant for the reasoning and scrutinizing those considerations to be clearly distinguished. In the second part of the paper, I offer a positive methodological proposal for the construction of questions and premises that aims at overcoming a number of the individual and systematic shortcomings of extant question styles. The paper concludes by arguing that the newly proposed approach is both normatively strong and practically useful for argumentation in context. (shrink)

B a c k g r o u n d. The article is devoted to the study of confirmatory distortion as a cognitive bias within the framework of the modern theory of argumentation. In the context of this study, the effectiveness of the critical questioning technique as an argumentation strategy aimed at reducing the negative impact of confirmatory bias is considered. M e t h o d s. To achieve the goals of the research, the method of critical questions is (...) used, which is based on the traditional principles of logic, dialectics and rhetoric. Specific lists of critical questions are developed for each argumentative scheme. R e s u l t s. The article demonstrates that standard critical questions for schemes of practical reasoning, developed by eminent specialists, are able to minimize the negative impact of confirmation bias. This is achieved by taking into account information that may conflict with the agent's action plan. C o n c l u s i o n s. The study highlights the importance of using critical questions as a tool to minimize confirmation bias. Such an approach not only contributes to the substantiation of arguments, but also stimulates self-control and the search for information that may cause doubts about one's own views. The final part of the article examines propaganda as the deliberate use of confirmatory distortion and points to the need for attention to language patterns where it occurs rather unintentionally. In connection with the specificity of the studied phenomenon, the term "confirmation bias" is proposed as a translation of the English "confirmation bias". (shrink)

Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.

In this paper it is shown how plausible reasoning of the kind illustrated in the ancient Greek example of the weak and strong man can be analyzed and evaluated using a procedure in which the pro evidence is weighed against the con evidence using formal, computational argumentation tools. It is shown by means of this famous example how plausible reasoning is based on an audience’s recognition of situations of a type they are familiar with as normal and comprehensible in their (...) shared common knowledge. The paper extends previous work on this example by using three new multiagent argumentation schemes closely related to the scheme for argument from negative consequences. (shrink)

Sanford Goldberg’s account of epistemic coverage constitutes a special case of Douglas Walton’s view that epistemic closure arises from dialectical argument. Walton’s pragmatic version of epistemic closure depends on dialectical norms for closing an argument, and epistemic coverage operates at the limits of argument closure because it minimizes dialectical exchange. Such closure works together with a shared hypothetical consideration to justify dismissal of surprising claims.

The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...) reasons, for deductive arguments, e.g., semantic tableaux are suggested. (shrink)