Editing Argumentation theory (section)

===Walton's logical argumentation method===

[[Douglas N. Walton]] developed a distinctive philosophical theory of logical argumentation built around a set of practical methods to help a user identify, analyze and evaluate arguments in everyday conversational discourse and in more structured areas such as debate, law and scientific fields.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Walton|first1=Douglas|title=Methods of Argumentation|date=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge}}</ref> There are four main components: [[argumentation scheme]]s,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Walton|first1=Douglas|last2=Reed|first2=Chris|last3=Macagno|first3=Fabrizio|title=Argumentation Schemes|date=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=New York}}</ref> dialogue structures, [[argument map]]ping tools, and formal argumentation systems. The method uses the notion of commitment in dialogue as the fundamental tool for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation rather than the notion of belief.<ref name="WaltonKrabbe1995">{{cite book|last1=Walton|first1=Douglas|last2=Krabbe|first2=E. C. W.|title=Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning|date=1995|publisher=SUNY Press|location=Albany}}</ref> Commitments are statements that the agent has expressed or formulated, and has pledged to carry out, or has publicly asserted. According to the commitment model, agents interact with each other in a dialogue in which each takes its turn to contribute speech acts. The dialogue framework uses critical questioning as a way of testing plausible explanations and finding weak points in an argument that raise doubt concerning the acceptability of the argument.

Walton's logical argumentation model took a view of proof and justification different from [[analytic philosophy]]'s dominant [[epistemology]], which was based on a [[justified true belief]] framework.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Walton|first1=Douglas|last2=Zhang|first2=Nanning|title=The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence|journal=Artificial Intelligence and Law|date=2 October 2013|volume=21|issue=2|page=1|publisher=Social Science Research Network|doi=10.1007/s10506-012-9132-9|language=en|quote=In place of the traditional epistemological view of knowledge as justified true belief we argue that artificial  intelligence and law needs an evidence -based epistemology|ssrn=2335090|s2cid=16536938}}</ref> In the logical argumentation approach, knowledge is seen as form of belief commitment firmly fixed by an argumentation procedure that tests the evidence on both sides, and uses standards of proof to determine whether a proposition qualifies as knowledge. In this evidence-based approach, knowledge must be seen as [[Defeasible reasoning|defeasible]].