1. Open risk assessment Lecture 5: Argumentation
Mikko Pohjola
KTL, Finland

2. Lecture contents Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory
Knowledge creation through argumentation
Argumentation in ORA

3. Pragma-dialectics A systematic theory of argumentation
Created by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, University of Amsterdam
"Argumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of one or more propositions to justify this standpoint." (Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002, p. xii)

4. Basic building blocks of argumentation
Protagonist
The party that expresses a standpoint and is ready to defend that standpoint with arguments
Antagonist
The party that expresses doubts and/or counterarguments on the standpoint expressed by the protagonist

5. Basic building blocks of argumentation
Standpoint
A statement expressed by the protagonist, representing his/her view on some matter
The focal point of an argumentative discussion
Argument
A defensive or attacking expression in relation to the standpoint or another argument
Premise
Assumption presumed true within the argumentative discourse
Explicit or implicit, but premises likely to be perceived differently by the protagonist and the antagonist should be agreed upon before starting an argumentation

6. Ideal model for a critical discussion
Confrontation
where the parties agree on a difference of opinion
Opening
where the parties agree on the roles (protagonist/antagonist), rules and starting points
Argumentation
where the protagonist defends his/her standpoint by arguments and the antagonist either expresses doubts or attacks the standpoint/arguments
Concluding
where the parties assess to which extent they have reached a resolution and in whose favor, implying that one of the parties must retract standpoint (the protagonist) or doubt (the antagonist)

7. Structure of argumentation
Single argumentation
Single argument either defending or attacking a standpoint
Multiple argumentation
More than one argument on the same level
All defending or attacking a standpoint
Each argument is an alternative to the others (each provides support on its own)
Coordinative argumentation
Consisting of more than one argument on the same level
Arguments constitute the defense together (constitutes support as a whole)
Subordinative argumentation
consisting of several levels of arguments
each is linked and supports the argument/standpoint on the level above (constitutes support as a whole)
Example

8. General guidelines for argumentation
First of all, the parties must have the will to try to achieve the goal of the discourse
The parties should also follow the communication principle
i.e. their communication should match as well as possible to the purpose of their communication
The communication should be clear, sincere, efficient and to the point
The parties should not use any dubious means in advancing their position in the discourse
in other words: not violate the ten rules for a critical discussion

9. Rules for a critical discussion
Freedom rule
Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints
Burden of proof rule
A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so
Standpoint rule
A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party
Relevance rule
A party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint
Unexpressed premise rule
A party may not disown a premise that has been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party

10. Rules for a critical discussion
Starting point rule
A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point
Argument scheme rule
A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied
Validity rule
A party may only use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises
Closure rule
A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its doubt about the standpoint
Usage rule
A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible

11. Argumentation in knowledge creation
Critical scrutiny of statements
Reformulation of statements according to critique
Creation of shared understanding
Defending of statements
Agreeing upon premises
Explicating premises!

12. Collaborative learning-work
Creating shared meaning, knowledge in a team
Identification – individuals can agree that a problem exists but yet disagree on how to define or represent it
Definition – how the problem is defined influences the types of solutions the group will generate, it involves assumptions and constraints
Exploration – the search for solutions that the group can agree will respond to the need as defined
Action – testing out hypothesis about the solutions to see what will work and what will not meet the defined need
Looking – observation of the effects

13. Argumentation in ORA Based on pragma-dialectics
Complemented or fine-tuned with:
Falsification of hypothesis –principle
ORA method provides a formal information structure for targeting argumentation
Computer-aid for virtual argumentation within unorganized groups and formal documentation of communication

14. Argumentation in ORA
In participatory knowledge-intensive work disputes will arise
Formal argumentation is a means for dealing with disputes
Disputes are possibilities for knowledge creation and creating shared understanding
Disputes highlight the points of improvement in an assessment/variable

15. Argumentation in knowledge creation
Falsification of a hypothesis
A variable (or assessment) is a hypothesis about a certain part of reality
Expressed standpoints (stated disputes) are attempts to falsify the hypothesis
Arguments defend or attack the standpoint
A variable (assessment), or its part, holds true until it is falsified
The protagonist of a falsifying standpoint has the burden of proof for the standpoint
A falsified hypothesis is modified or a new hypothesis is created according to the needs explicated through argumentation

16. Argumentation in ORA
Argumentation is always targeted to a specific relevant point within the information structure
A particular assessment or variable
A particular attribute of an assessment or variable
A particular piece of content within a particular attribute
A standpoint must be relevant within the scope of the object that it relates to
Arguments must be relevant in relation to the standpoint

17. Argumentation in ORA
Formal argumentation is a means for explicating communication in an ORA process
Documentation of informal discussions and comments
Formalization of informal discussions and comments
Argumentation analysis (a posteriori)
Discussion directly as formal argumentation (a priori)
Communication initiated by a statement of a dispute (explicit or implicit)

18. Argumentation in ORA Computer-aid for formal argumentation Example
Ready-made templates for formal discussions
Discussion template
Dispute
Outcome
Argumentation
Attacking argument
Defending argument
Comment
signature
Discussion/Resolution link for targeting the argumentation to a relevant point within the information structure
Example

19. Argumentation in ORA Argumentation is always about a standpoint
The dispute statement should clearly formulated
No vague comments, no questions
An argument or standpoint is valid unless it has been successfully attacked
Defending arguments support statements they refer to
Attacking arguments invalidate statements they refer to
If an attacking argument is attacked the original statement becomes re-validated
Example