Discussion
Loading...

Discussion

  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago

We have a new paper out on argumentation in agent-based modelling (ABM). ABMs are essential to understanding belief and opinion dynamics in complex systems such as online social networks. But past modelling work has almost universally used only extremely simple models where agents exchange only a single numeric quantity (e.g., an „opinion) to model the dynamics of such systems.

While that is informative, the gross over simplification means that the nature of the observed dynamics differs fundamentally from that seen in real world contexts where we exchange individual arguments for our claims. 1/

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Steve Lindsay
@Steve_Lindsay@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago
@UlrikeHahn Sounds very cool, Ulrike!
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago

2/ we have know this since Maes and Flache’s 2013 paper on polarization without distancing, but what has been missing is agent-based modelling with more realistic notions of ‘argument’ and ‘argumentation”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074516

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago

3/ our new paper sets out a conceptual framework for identifying various features of ‘argument’ in order to provide a framework for allowing modellers to make suitable choices about what features of argumentation to include in their model.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago

4/ specifically, we take three interrelated notions of ‘argument’: as a single reason, as a unit comprising premises and a conclusion, and, finally, as a dialectical exchange. We argue that these form interrelated, but separable dimensions of a 3 dimensional argument space, which allows us to locate extant modelling frameworks relative to each other while also providing a tool for thinking about argument in different real world contexts.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-025-10215-2

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago

5/ Argument “space” as defined by the representational complexity of individual reasons, the inferential complexity of premise-conclusion relations, and the dialectical complexity of the strategies by which agents select arguments

…we hope this work will lead to better modelling choices and greater conceptual clarity in argumentation research more generally. In particular, we hope it will facilitate exchange across “rival” frameworks for thinking about argument by allowing greater clarity on what a given framework does and does not capture

@cogsci @philosophy #epistemology#ABM#ABMs

Sorry, no caption provided by author
Sorry, no caption provided by author
Sorry, no caption provided by author
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Log in

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.0-rc.2.21 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct
Home
Login