qproj wikiCAPNA
The Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA), developed by Martin Hinton, is a method for judging whether an argument is good. The Periodic Table of Arguments says what kind of argument something is. CAPNA asks whether it works. Hinton and Jean Wagemans later combined the two, using an argument’s PTA type to decide which questions to ask of its reasoning.
Three aspects
CAPNA assesses an argument in three respects:
- Process: is the argument relevant to the issue being discussed?
- Reasoning: is the premise acceptable, and does the lever hold? Does the premise really support the conclusion in the way the argument claims?
- Language: are the terms clear, and are they used consistently?
In the combined procedure, each kind of lever has its own questions about the reasoning. They resemble the traditional critical questions of argument schemes. An argument from analogy invites “is really like in the way that matters?”. An appeal to an expert invites “is this source an expert on this question?”.
In Quell
Critical questions are a natural fit for dialogue. When a player’s argument is weak, a character could answer with the critical question its type invites. A response that names the kind of weakness, without supplying the fix, would also make brute-force guessing less useful.
See also
- Periodic Table of Arguments — the types whose critical questions CAPNA uses.
- Abstract argumentation — deciding who wins once the strength of individual arguments is known.
References
- Hinton, M. (2021). Evaluating the Language of Argument. Springer.
- Hinton, M., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2021). Evaluating reasoning in natural arguments: A procedural approach. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-021-09555-1.
What links here: Debate, Abstract argumentation, Periodic Table of Arguments