walton.yml

meta:
  title: Walton Argumentation Schemes
  notes: >
    Here we illustrate one way to represent many of the argumentation schemes of Doug Walton,
    including critical questions. 
  source: >
    Walton, Douglas and Reed, Chris and Macagno, Fabrizio (2008). 
    Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.

language:
  applicable/1: "Argument %s is applicable."
  asserts/2: "%s asserts that %s is true."
  bad/1: "%s is bad."
  bad_moral_character/1: "%s has bad moral character."
  based_on_evidence/1: "The assertion %v is based on evidence."
  believes/2: "%s believes %s to be true."
  biased/1: "%s is biased."
  bribed/1: "%s was bribed."
  brings_about/2: "The action %s brings about %s."
  bring_about_more_effectively/2: "There exists an action that would bring about %s more effectively than %s."
  causes/2: "Event %s causes event %s."
  causes_both/2: "Some other event causes both %s and %s."
  character_is_relevant/1: "Character is relevant for evaluating the plausibility of the assertion: %s"
  classified_as/2: "Objects which satisfy definition %s are classified as instances of class %s."
  correlated/2: "Events %s and %s are correlated."
  credible_source/2: "Witness %s is a credible source for the domain %s."
  current_circumstances/1: "%s is the case in the current circumstances."
  defeasibly_implies/2: "If %s is true then presumably %s is also true."
  dishonest/1: "%s is dishonest."
  expert/2: "%s is an expert in the %s domain."
  explanation/2: "Theory %s explains %s."
  explanatory_theory/2: "There exists a theory explaining how event %s causes event %s."
  feasible/1: "It is feasible to perform the action %s."
  future_losses_outweigh/1: "Future losses of completing the action %s outweigh its value."
  good/1: "%s is good."
  good_moral_character/1: "%s is of good moral character."
  has_conclusion/2: "Rule %s has conclusion %s."
  has_occurred/1: "An event %s has occurred."
  horrible_costs/1: "Event %s would entail horrible costs."
  implausible/1: "%s is implausible."
  implies/2: "%s implies %s."
  inadequate_definition/2: "%s is an inadequate definition of %s."
  inapplicable_rule/1: "Rule %s is inapplicable in this case."
  incompatible_goal/1: "Another goal is incompatible with %s."
  inconsistent_with_known_facts/1: "%s is inconsistent with the known facts."
  inconsistent_with_other_experts/1:  "%s is inconsistent with what other experts assert."
  inconsistent_with_other_witnesses/1: "%s is inconsistent with what other witnesses assert."
  in_case/2: "%s is true in case %s."
  in_domain/2: "%s is in the domain of %s."
  intervening_actions/2: "Intervening actions are needed after performing %s to achieve %s."
  instance/2: "%s is an instance of class %s."
  interference/1: "An event has occurred which interferes with event %s."
  internally_consistent/1: "%s is internally consistent."
  known/1: "%s is known to be true."
  legitimate_value/1: "%s is a legitimate value."
  looks_like/2: "%s looks like a %s."
  in/2: "%s contains %s as a member."
  more_coherent_explanation/2: "There exists a more coherent explanation than theory %s of observation %s."
  more_on_point/2: "%s is false in another case which is more on point than case %s."
  negative_consequences/1: "Performing action %s would have negative consequences."
  observed/1:  "%s has been observed."
  other_credible_sources_disagree/1: "Other credible sources disagree with %s."
  position_to_know/2: "%s is in a position to know about things in a certain subject domain %s."
  positive_consequences/1: "Performing action %s would have positive consequences."
  possible/1: "Action %s is possible."
  promote_more_effectively/2: "There exists an action that would promote the value %s more effectively than %s."
  realize_more_effectively/2: "There exists an action that would realize the goal %s more effectively than %s."
  relevant_differences/1: "There are relevant differences between case %s and the current case."
  relevant_differences/2: "There are relevant differences between case %s and case %s."
  rule_of_case/2: "Rule %s is the ratio decidendi of case %s."
  satisfies_definition/2: "%s satisfies definition %s."
  should_be_performed/1: "Action %s should be performed."
  side_effects/2: "Performing %s in %s would have side-effects which demote some value."
  similar_case/1: "Case %s is similar to the current case."
  subclass/2:  "%s is a subclass of %s."
  sunk_costs/2:  "The costs incurred performing %s thus far are %s."
  too_high_to_waste/1: "The sunk costs of %s are too high to waste."
  trustworthy/1: "%s is trustworthy."
  uninvestigated/1: "The truth of %s has not been sufficiently investigated."
  untrustworthy/1: "%s is untrustworthy."
  valid/1: "Rule %s is valid."
  will_occur/1: "An event %s will occur."
  worthy_goal/1: "%s is a worthy goal."
  would_achieve/2: "Performing action %s would achieve goal %s."
  would_be_realized/2: "%s would be realized in %s."
  would_be_known/1: "%s would be known if it were true."
  would_bring_about/3: "Performing %s in %s would bring about %s."
  would_demote_value/2: "Achieving the goal %s would demote the value %s."
  would_promote_value/2:  "Achieving the goal %s would promote the value %s."
  would_realize/2: "Performing %s would realize event %s."
    
# statements:
#    expert(joe,climate): Joe is a climate expert.
#    in_domain(¬caused_by(global_warming,humans),climate): >
#       The claim that global warming is not caused by humans is in the climate domain.
#    asserts(joe,¬caused_by(global_warming,humans)): >
#       Joe asserts that global warming is not caused by humans.
#    ¬caused_by(global_warming,humans): >
#       Global warming is not caused by humans.
#    based_on_evidence(asserts(joe,¬caused_by(global_warming,humans))): 
#       "Joe's assertion is based on evidence."

argument_schemes:
  - id: abduction
    variables: [S,T,H]
    conclusions: [H]
    premises:
      - observed(S)
      - explanation(T,S)
      - in(T,H)
    exceptions:
      - more_coherent_explanation(T,S)
        
  - id: analogy
    meta:
      title: Argument from Analogy
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation,
        Cambridge University Press, New York 2006, p. 96-97.
    variables: [A,C]
    conclusions: [A]
    premises:
      - similar_case(C)
      - in_case(A,C)
    exceptions:
      - relevant_differences(C)
      - more_on_point(A,C)

  - id: appearance
    meta:
      title: Argument from Appearance
      source: "Douglas Walton, ‘Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme’, 2006."
    variables: [O,C]
    conclusions:
      - instance(O,C)
    premises:
      - looks_like(O,C)
    
  - id: cause_to_effect
    meta:
      title: Argument from Cause to Effect
    variables: [E1,E2]
    conclusions:
      - will_occur(E2)
    premises:
      - has_occurred(E1)
      - causes(E1,E2)
    exceptions:
      - interference(E1)

  - id: correlation_to_cause
    meta:
      title: Argument from Correlation to Cause
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1995, p. 142.
    variables: [E1,E2]
    conclusions:
      - causes(E1,E2)
    premises:
      - correlated(E1,E2)
    assumptions:
      - explanatory_theory(E1,E2)
    exceptions:
      - causes_both(E1,E2)
        
  - id: credible_source
    meta:
      title: "Argument from Credible Source"
      source: "Wyner, A., A
              functional perspective on argumentation schemes. 
              Argument and Computation, vol. 7, pp. 113-133. 2016."
    variables: [W,D,S]
    conclusions: [S]
    premises:
      - credible_source(W,D)
      - asserts(W,S)
      - in_domain(S,D)
    exceptions:
      - biased(W)
      - dishonest(W)
      - other_credible_sources_disagree(S)

  - id: definition_to_verbal_classification
    meta:
      title: Argument from Definition to Verbal Classification
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation,
        Cambridge University Press, New York 2006, p. 129.
    variables: [O,G,D]
    conclusions:
      - instance(O,G)
    premises:
      - satisfies_definition(O,D)
      - classified_as(D,G)
    exceptions:
      - inadequate_definition(D,G)

  - id: defeasible_modus_ponens
    meta:
      title: Defeasible Modus Ponens
    variables: [A,B]
    premises:
      - implies(A,B)
      - A   
    conclusions: [B]

  - id: established_rule
    meta:
      title: Argument from an Established Rule
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1995, p. 147.
    variables: [C,R]
    conclusions: [C]
    premises:
      - has_conclusion(R,C)
      - applicable(R)
    assumptions:
      - valid(R)

  - id: ethotic1
    meta:
      title: Positive Argument from Ethos
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1995, p. 152.
    variables: [P,S]
    conclusions: [S]
    premises:
      - asserts(P,S)
      - good_moral_character(P)
    assumptions:
      - character_is_relevant(S)

  - id: ethotic2
    meta:
      title: Negative Argument from Ethos
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1995, p. 152.
    variables: [P,S]
    conclusions: [¬S]
    premises:
      - asserts(P,S)
      - bad_moral_character(P)
    assumptions:
      - character_is_relevant(S)

  - id: expert_opinion
    meta:
      title: Argument from Expert Opinion
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion, The Pennsylvania University Press,
        University Park, Albany, 1997, p.211-225.
    variables: [W,D,S]
    premises:
      - expert(W,D)
      - in_domain(S,D)
      - asserts(W,S)
    exceptions:
      - untrustworthy(W)
      - inconsistent_with_other_experts(S)
    assumptions:
      - based_on_evidence(asserts(W,S))
    conclusions:
      - S

  - id: ignorance
    meta:
      title: Argument from Ignorance
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London, 1995, p. 150
    variables: [S]
    conclusions:
      - ¬S
    premises:
      - would_be_known(S)
      - ¬known(S)
    exceptions:
      - uninvestigated(S)

    
  - id: negative_consequences
    meta:
      title: Argument from Negative Consequences
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London,
        1995, pp. 155-156.
    variables: [A,G]
    conclusions:
      - ¬should_be_performed(A)
    premises:
      - brings_about(A,G)
      - bad(G)
      
  - id: position_to_know
    meta:
      title: Argument from Position to Know
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence,
        The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, 2002, p.46.
    variables: [W,D,S]
    conclusions: [S]
    premises:
      - position_to_know(W,D)
      - asserts(W,S)
      - in_domain(S,D)
    exceptions:
      - dishonest(W)

  - id: positive_consequences
    meta:
      title: Argument from Positive Consequences
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London,
        1995, pp. 155-156.
    variables: [A,G]
    conclusions:
      - should_be_performed(A)
    premises:
      - brings_about(A,G)
      - good(G)

  - id: practical_reasoning1
    meta:
      title: Argument from Value-Based Practical Reasoning
      source: >
        Atkinson, K., and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.
        Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action
        based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171,
        10-15 (2007), 855–874.
    variables: [A,S1,S2,G,V]
    conclusions:
      - should_be_performed(A)
    premises:
      - current_circumstances(S1)
      - would_bring_about(A,S1,S2)
      - would_be_realized(G,S2)
      - would_promote_value(G,V)
    assumptions:
      - legitimate_value(V)
      - worthy_goal(G)
      - possible(A)
    exceptions:
      - bring_about_more_effectively(S2,A)
      - realize_more_effectively(G,A)
      - promote_more_effectively(V,A)
      - side_effects(A,S1)

  - id: practical_reasoning2
    meta:
      title: Argument from Instrumental Practical Reasoning
      source: >
        Walton, Douglas (2015). Goal-Based Reasoning for Argumentation. 
        Cambridge University Press.
    variables: [A,S1,S2,G]
    conclusions:
      - should_be_performed(A)
    premises:
      - current_circumstances(S1)
      - would_bring_about(A,S1,S2)
      - would_be_realized(G,S2)
    assumptions:
      - possible(A)
      - possible(G)
    exceptions:
      - bring_about_more_effectively(S2,A)
      - realize_more_effectively(G,A)
      - intervening_actions(A,G)
      - side_effects(A,S1)
      - incompatible_goal(G)

  - id: precedent
    meta:
      title: Argument from Precedent
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy,
        The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London,
        1995, p. 148
    variables: [S,C,R]
    conclusions: [S]
    premises:
      - similar_case(C)
      - rule_of_case(R,C)
      - has_conclusion(R,S)
    exceptions:
      - relevant_differences(R,C)
      - inapplicable_rule(R)

  - id: slippery_slope_base_case
    meta:
      title: Slippery Slope Argument
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Slippery Slope Arguments, Vale Press, Newport News, 1999, pp. 93, 95.
    variables: [A,E]
    conclusions:
      - negative_consequences(A)
    premises:
      - would_realize(A,E)
      - horrible_costs(E)

  - id: slippery_slope_inductive_step
    meta:
      title: Slippery Slope Argument
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Slippery Slope Arguments, Vale Press, Newport News, 1999, pp. 93, 95.
    variables: [E1,E2]
    conclusions:
      - horrible_costs(E1)
    premises:
      - causes(E1,E2)
      - horrible_costs(E2)
            
  - id: sunk_costs
    meta:
      title: Argument from Sunk Costs
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, ‘The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste’,
        Argumentation, 16, 2002, p. 489
    variables: [A,C]
    conclusions:
      - should_be_performed(A)
    premises:
      - sunk_costs(A,C)
      - too_high_to_waste(C)
    assumptions:
      - feasible(A)
    exceptions:
      - future_losses_outweigh(A)
        
  - id: verbal_classification
    meta:
      title: Argument from Verbal Classification
    variables: [O,F,G]
    conclusions:
      - instance(O,G)
    premises:
      - instance(O,F)
      - subclass(F,G)

  - id: witness_testimony
    meta:
      title: Argument from Witness Testimony
      source: >
        Douglas Walton, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed,
        Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about
        Evidence, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
        Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, 2003. New York: ACM
        Press 2003, pp. 35.  Douglas Walton, Witness Testimony Evidence,
        Cambridge University Press, 2008.
    variables: [W,D,S]
    conclusions: [S]
    premises:
      - position_to_know(W,D)
      - in_domain(D,S)
      - believes(W,S)
      - asserts(W,S)
    assumptions:
      - internally_consistent(S)
    exceptions:
      - inconsistent_with_known_facts(S)
      - inconsistent_with_other_witnesses(S)
      - biased(W)
      - implausible(S)

assumptions:
  - biased(joe)
  - expert(joe, climate)
  - asserts(joe,¬caused_by(global_warming,humans))
  - in_domain(¬caused_by(global_warming, humans), climate)
  - implies(biased(joe),untrustworthy(joe))
  - inconsistent_with_other_experts(¬caused_by(global_warming, humans))