The manifold uses of game theory

I came across this article recently published by The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21527025 which is on game theory. It explains how game theory may be used (and how it is used) to predict human beings' behaviour in a variety of fields. Politics and negotiation are just a couple of good examples. The journalist even reports that game theory would have played a role in finding Bin Laden's hiding place last May.

Well, so far so good. The fact is, I knew about game theory because when I was working on my PhD on dispute mediation I learnt that this branch of mathematics is used in negotiation. I did not really use it for my own research; my feeling was that the emphasis on a mathematical model was hardly conciliable with my own focus on argumentation - and how argumentation can indeed change the power balance, change the individuals' priorities by helping them find out their real interests. So I sort of abandoned game theory halfway through my PhD journey.

However, who knows... In The Economist's paper, I found it particularly interesting that a game-theory based consultation may cost you a lot of money because you "must first conduct lengthy interviews with experts" to construct a reliable model. Perhaps investigating this aspect - what these "lengthy interviews" amount to and how they are used - would allow integrating game theory in an argumentation-focused study of argumentation and mediation.

A story about the argumentative attitude

"In addition to the rules and the arguments, the Talmud also contains stories. One famous story from the Tractate Baba Metzia (59b) shows that the sages knew full well the importance of earthly dispute for discovering the divinely correct rules of conduct. The sages were discussing whether or not a particular oven infringed the rules of ritual cleanliness. Surprisingly on this occasion the opinion of the great Rabbi Eliezer was rejected. Rabbi Eliezer, convinced of the correctness of his view, decided to enlist the help of the Almighty to prove his point. He declared: "Let this carob-tree prove that things are as I state". Whereupon the carobs were miraculously thrown a great distance off the tree. The other rabbis remained unimpressed and merely replied: "The carobs prove nothing". Rabbi Eliezer then said: "Let the walls of the college then prove I am right". The walls of the building, in which they were all gathered, began to shake and totter. The other rabbis shouted angrily to the walls: "If scholars are discussing the Law, what right have you to interfere!". The walls stopped their shaking. Finally, in desperation Rabbi Eliezer called out: "Let it be announced in the heavens that my statement was correct". And a heavenly voice was heard by all to say: "Why do you quarrel with Rabbi Eliezer, who is always right in his decisions?" That was not the end of the matter. Rabbi Joshua answered the heavenly voice back by quoting from the Bible: "The Law is not in the heavens". The Law, indeed all laws, lay now in earthly discussions. If heavenly voices wished to join in the debates, then they must do better than to shake walls or send carobs flying: they must present good arguments. Even a heavenly voice would have to conform to the dictum that "a legal decision depends not on the teacher's age, but on the force of his argument" (Talmud, Baba Bathra, 142b).




[From M. Billig, Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, 1996.]

An Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent

The State visit of the Pope to England has been the subject of a vivid debate on the media recently. Yet this is not the only reason why it is relevant from the argumentative point of view. On Sunday, the
 beatification of cardinal John Henry Newman was celebrated. For me, this was the occasion to have a look to some of the writings of this man and cardinal, in particular to "An Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent", which, in many respects, is relevant to argumentative studies.

I will just quote a passage here:

There is another reason for attempting to discover an instrument of reasoning (that is, of gaining new truths by means of old), which may be less vague and arbitrary than the talent and experience of the few or the common-sense of the many. As memory is not always accurate, and has on that account led to the adoption of writing, as being a memoria technica, unaffected by the failure of mental impressions,—as our senses at times deceive us, and have to be corrected by each other; so is it also with our reasoning faculty. The conclusions of one man are not the conclusions of another; those of the same man do not always agree together; those of ever so many who agree together may differ from the facts themselves, which those conclusions are intended to ascertain. In consequence it becomes a necessity, if it be possible, to analyze the process of reasoning, and to invent a method which may act as a common measure between mind and mind, as a means of joint investigation, and as a recognized intellectual standard,—a standard such as to secure us against hopeless mistakes, and to emancipate us from the capricious ipse dixit of authority.



From:
An Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent, Chapter 8 section 1 (See the full text)

The role of argumentation in British education: an historical glimpse

Recently I was surprised by the description that Niall Ferguson makes of the (very competitive) exams that were proposed to candidates for the Indian Civil Service (the administration of the British colonies). I do not have the intention to discuss imperialism here. Ferguson wrote a brilliant essay about the British empire (Empire: How Britain made the modern world, Penguin, 2003),which I am going to cite (pp. 185-186).

I was impressed by some of the questions that candidates were asked in 1859 for their exams. The historical questions are interesting: "Enumerate the chief Colonies of England, and state how and when she acquired each of them", or "Name the successive Governors-General of British India as far as 1830, giving the dates of their Governments, and a brief summary of the main Indian transactions under each" (!). But together with these questions, the "Logic and Mental Philosophy paper" includes this one: "Classify Fallacies".

Really, I am impressed. The British administrators/governors of the colonies were asked to know some fundamentals of argumentation. I do not want to draw conclusions about British colonies, but it is an interesting clue to what the educational requirements were for a man who should work in an institutional domain.

New Publication on the Argumentum Model of Topics

A new paper on the Argumentum Model of Topics has just appeared on the journal Argumentation:


Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components
Eddo Rigotti and Sara Greco Morasso


See the ONLINE FIRST section from the homepage of Argumentation, from which the paper can be downloaded:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/102850/?Content+Status=Accepted

Abstract
This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT, see Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009), we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT’s denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and methodological perspective of pragma-dialectics in its extended version, reconciling dialectic and rhetoric; nevertheless, it also takes into account numerous other contributions to the study of argument schemes. Aiming at a representation of argument schemes able to monitor the inferential cohesion and completeness of arguments, AMT focuses on two components of argument scheme that could be distinguished, readapting pragma-dialectical terms, as procedural and material respectively. The procedural component is based on the semantic-ontological structure, which generates the inferential connection from which the logical form of the argument is derived. The material component integrates into the argument scheme the implicit and explicit premises bound to the contextual common ground (Rigotti 2006). In this paper, the comparison of the AMT to other approaches focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments and not on the typologies of argument schemes and on the principles they are based on, which the authors intend to tackle in a further paper.

An exhibition with an argumentative structure

Have a look to the website of the Science Museum London to see an exhibit structured in a very argumentative fashion: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/futurefoods/

• clearly stated issues
• standpoints and arguments nicely presented
• "join the debate", an effort to make the visitor enter the debate

Well, maybe it is not perfect; but it was a nice surprise to me to see how much an institutional setting such as a museum can not only "spread knowledge" but also promote an argumentative attitude.

ARGUMENTATION AND EDUCATION

Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices
Muller Mirza, Nathalie; Perret-Clermont, Anne-Nelly (Eds.)
New York: Springer, 2009, VI, 237 p. 25 illus., Hardcover
ISBN: 978-0-387-98124-6

Table of contents
Introduction, Nathalie Muller Mirza and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont

Part I. Theoretical Foundations
Argumentation as an Object of Interest and as a Social and Cultural Resource, Eddo Rigotti and Sara Greco Morasso
Psychosocial Processes in Argumentation, Nathalie Muller Mirza, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Valerie Tartas, and Antonio Iannaccone
Argumentation and Learning, Baruch B. Schwarz
Argumentative Interactions and the Social Construction of Knowledge, Michael Baker
Argumentative Design, Jerry E. B. Andriessen and Baruch B. Schwarz

Part II. Practices
Developing Argumentation: Lessons Learned in the Primary School, Neil Mercer
Argumentation in Higher Education: Examples of Actual Practices with Argumentation Tools, Jerry E. B. Andriessen
The Argumentum Experience, Sara Greco Morasso

New publication - GLOBAL LINGUISTICS

A new volume on intercultural communication with some interesting insights on argumentation in the delicate context of intercultural relationships:

Danesi, Marcel / Rocci, Andrea
Global Linguistics
An Introduction
2009. 23 x 15.5 cm. X, 270 pages. 30 fig. 21 tables. Paperback. RRP Euro [D] 34.95 / for USA, Canada, Mexico US$ 39.95.
ISBN 978-3-11-021406-2 Series: Mouton Textbook
MOUTON DE GRUYTER
http://www.degruyter.de/cont/fb/sk/detailEn.cfm?isbn=978-3-11-021406-2

***About this Title (from Mouton De Gruyter's website):
The book provides an introduction to an interdisciplinary field of inquiry that can be called “global linguistics” (GL). GL emerges to tackle the ever-growing phenomenon of intercultural communication (IC) in today’s world of international contacts. The specific aim of GL is to look at the form and contents of dialogues among speakers of different cultural backgrounds who will use a “default language” or koiné (usually English) to interact, in order to detect communication breakdowns at various levels of “depth,” as well as the opportunities for developing sound intercultural communication practice. The book includes an accessible presentation of fundamental questions concerning languages and language use. Among the questions addressed are the universal design features of languages, the connection between language and conceptual systems, how people use language to coordinate their actions and interact in a variety of social contexts, and the place of language in a semiotic view of culture. The volume also addresses how language, context and culture shape the way in which we argue a point and try to persuade other people, and why intercultural argumentation is both necessary and risky.Global Linguistics: An Introduction describes fundamental notions in linguistics and cognate fields and is thus well-suited for use as a textbook in courses dealing with IC in general. At the same time, the book is of general interest to scholars in linguistics and communication studies, as it places particular emphasis on theoretical models such as argumentation theory and conceptual metaphor theory, which are generally not presented in textbooks on language and IC.

Argumentation, relationship, emotions

Suggested reading: Sara Cigada (2006), "Connectif et relation entre locuteurs", in: Syndesmoi, Connettivi nella realtà dei testi, ed. G. Gobber, M.C. Gatti and S. Cigada, Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 97-173.

Sara Cigada offers an intriguing account on how the most important "habit change" allowed by communication is on the relationship between the interlocutors.

After a very detailed review of those approaches dealing with the topic of relationship and communication, the author proposes some theoretical notions (subjectivité et relation, common ground, connectif, intérêt et thématisation, implication et changement) through which she analyses a corpus of texts related to the foundations of Europe after the Second World War.

I 'discovered' and appreciated this text while looking at the relation between conflict, communication, and relationship. A very interesting reading that I warmly suggest.

USILINK: "L'argomentazione unisce Amsterdam e Lugano"

An article about research on argumentation at the University of Lugano (Institute for linguistics and semiotics) has been published on the new issue of the newsletter USILINK. See http://www.press.unisi.ch/usilink (the article is in Italian).

Polisemy: a warning by Aristotle

"It is useful to have examined the number of meanings of a term both for clearness’ sake (for a man is more likely to know what it is he asserts, if it has been made clear to him how many meanings it may have), and also with a view to ensuring that our reasonings shall be in accordance with the actual facts and not addressed merely to the term used. For as long as it is not clear in how many senses a term is used, it is possible that the answerer and the questioner are not directing their minds upon the same thing: whereas when once it has been made clear how many meanings there are, and also upon which of them the former directs his mind when he makes his assertion, the questioner would then look ridiculous if he failed to address his argument to this". Topics, Book I, translated by Pickard-Cambridge, W.A. 2004, eBooks@Adelaide

Definition of argument

I got this definition of argument, particularly suited for women, from Martin Eppler (University of Lugano):

Argument (ar*gyou*ment) n. - A discussion that occurs when you're right but he just hasn't realized it yet.

Strategic manoeuvring....

Today's suggested reading

I am currently reading a scientific text that analyses the Jewish tradition from the point of view of social psychology; a text which I think has much to say to argumentation scholars about a particular argumentative tradition, and also, more in general, about the relation between argumentation and culture.

Here I only quote a small passage:

“Ensuite, le rejet de l’idolâtrie a eu pour seconde conséquence de dicter au judaïsme une très forte injonction à la pensée, à l’examen critique de toute opinion qui pourrait être basée sur un relent superstitieux, ainsi qu’un refus de sacralisation des textes du Talmud et des décrets humains. La Torah ayant été reçue par Moïse en signe de l’alliance entre Dieu et les hébreux, c’est par le biais de la transmission de ces textes que peut être maintenue et entretenue cette alliance. Ainsi le seul moyen de s’approcher d’une compréhension de la nature de Dieu et de la dimension divine de l’homme et du monde réside-t-il dans l’examen et l’étude approfondis des textes. Dès lors, l’étude et le questionnement s’imposent comme fondements de la tradition“

T. Zittoun, Tradition Juive et constructions de sens : une introduction à la transmission traditionnelle de l’herméneutique juive et a son utilisation contemporaine, Dossiers de psychologie de l’Institut de Psychologie de l’Université de Neuchâtel, n.58, Novembre 2001.

I am grateful to Anne-Nelly Perret Clermont who suggested this reading to the Lugano argumentation group.