Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Log In

FFAI Reasoning and Arguments by Mind Map: FFAI Reasoning and Arguments
0.0 stars - reviews range from 0 to 5

FFAI Reasoning and Arguments

arguments

mathematical proofs

definition

axiom

theorem

proof

discussion

scientific papers

definition

hypothesis (often based on mathematical or logical analysis)

experimental observation

analysis and conclusions

philosophical dialectics

dialectics = of, pertaining to, or of the nature of logical argumentation.

resolution of disagreement, search for truth through rational discussion

tension between opposing forces, thesis, antithesis

can be an internal dialog, or a simulated dialog in a text

steps, state question / hypothesis, identify objections, present arguments in favor, weighing the evidence, replies to objections

since the 19th century, the term has been applied to increasingly odd philosophical ideas and ideologies

philosophy and other arguments

definitions, what terms are being used and what do they mean?, what (experimental?) procedure to you use to determine whether objects conform to definitions?, are there explicit definitions?, do differences in definitions lead to conclusions?

premises, valid / invalid, assumptions / observations, preferences / values, sources / conclusions of other arguments

reasoning, kinds, logical, common forms, modus tollens, modus ponens, contradiction, often imitated in logical fallacies, logical fallacies, examples, statistical, rationality, Bayesian reasoning, Bayesian inference, Bayesian networks, simple statistical arguments, fuzzy, classical distiction, deductive, classical mathematical logic, modus ponens: if P then Q, P is true : Q is true, syllogism: if P then Q, if Q then R: if P then R, validity: the deduction is valid, but the premises (P) are not necessarily true, soundness: the deduction is valid AND the premises are true, "Your argument is valid." "Your argument is sound.", If you want to determine whether a deductive argument is valid, formalize it as logic inference., Watch out since some deductive arguments are only "approximately true", and in that case they are also Bayesian in nature., inductive, probabilistic reasoning, the sun has been rising for many years: the sun will likely rise tomorrow, if you want to know whether an inductive argument is valid, formalize it as a Bayesian argument

conclusions, should be explicitly stated, should be supported by reasoning, in papers, are often followed by a discussion ("what does this mean?")

rhetoric

rhetoric = effective persuasion

logic = correct inference

rhetoric, not logic, key part of politics

good science / philosophy

factual correctness

derivation using logic

presentation using rhetoric

bad science / philosophy

persuades you to believe in false facts or inferences through rhetoric

tedious science / philosophy

factually and logically correct

bad rhetoric

in looking at philosophical arguments on AI, watch out for good rhetoric combined with bad logic

representations

graphical representations

Classical logical diagrams

graphs

tree structures & mind maps

build a mindmap while reading

textual structures

organization of an argument

paragraph structure

sections & subsections

Structure of Scientific papers

spoken arguments and rhetoric

making and analyzing arguments

why?

make a convincing argument

understand someone else's argument

learn more about a subject

convince other people to do something

win in court/politics/business (adversarial setting)

how?

identify goals and motivation

identify premises, reasoning, conclusions

verify