=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2558/short3
|storemode=property
|title=Anticipatory Thinking with Argument Schemes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2558/short3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2558
|authors=Nancy Green
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aaaifs/Green19
}}
==Anticipatory Thinking with Argument Schemes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2558/short3.pdf
Anticipatory Thinking with Argument Schemes
Nancy L. Green
Department of Computer Science
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402 USA
nlgreen@uncg.edu
Abstract schemes. Anticipatory thinking (AT) is defined in the call
In previous work we proposed a set of argument schemes for papers as “the deliberate and divergent exploration of
for arguing about the putative intentions of foreign actors relevant possible futures.” We contend that the process of
and for responses to their actions, and created an argument AT should include making arguments for the hypothesized
diagramming tool providing those schemes as cognitive futures and challenging those arguments. In this paper, we
building blocks. In this paper we define an intentional define an intentional argument scheme for AT and
argument scheme for anticipatory thinking and propose propose that an argument diagramming tool can be used to
that an argument diagramming tool can further support
anticipatory thinking.
support individual or collaborative construction,
evaluation, and communication of arguments in AT.
Introduction
AVIZE’s Argument Schemes
Critical thinking about international politics often involves
reasoning about the beliefs, goals, appraisals, actions, and AVIZE provides a set of argument schemes tailored to
plans of actors such as foreign governments. In previous international affairs for constructing arguments in this
work (Green et al. 2019), we analyzed arguments in domain. For example, the Plan Distraction scheme is
expert-written reports on international affairs in terms of defined as follows. (Capitalized terms such as Actor and
argument schemes. Argument schemes were originally Protagonist are place holders for countries used so that the
proposed by argumentation theorists to describe schemes can be applied to many different situations, not
acceptable, but not necessarily deductively valid, and just the cases we analyzed when defining the schemes.)
possibly defeasible, generic patterns of reasoning used in
law, science and everyday conversation (Walton et al. Plan Distraction Scheme
2008). Examples of such patterns include Argument from Premises:
Expert Opinion and Reasoning to the Best Explanation. 1. Actor does Acts to divert Protagonist’s attention
Based primarily upon an article on the Russian from Other Acts.
government’s strategy for increasing Russia’s global 2. Actor believes that Protagonist would oppose
influence (Weinberger 2016), we defined a set of schemes Other Acts, otherwise.
tailored for arguing about the putative intentions of Conclusion: Actor does not want Protagonist to oppose
foreign actors and for responses to their actions. Our goal Other Acts.
was to provide this set of argument schemes to students
and analysts of international affairs. Although the schemes An example of this type of argument appeared in
could be used to analyze the argumentation in existing (Weinberger 2016): Putin has kept international attention
reports on international affairs, our intent was for them to riveted on Russian operations in Syria while escalating
be used as cognitive building blocks for constructing new military deployments and political operations across
arguments from collected evidence. To further support Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. (The conclusion, that
argument construction, we developed an argument Putin/Russia does not want the U.S. to oppose the military
diagramming tool, AVIZE (Argument Visualization and deployments and political operations, is implicit.)
Self-Evaluation), that provides this set of argument Argumentation theorists have proposed posing critical
questions associated with each argument scheme as a
means of challenging an argument. In AVIZE, all of the
Copyright © 2020 by its author. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). schemes include two critical questions: How reliable is the
source of each premise? How likely is each premise? In
addition, the Plan Distraction scheme described above
includes the questions: In the Actor’s view, are the The first prediction, that the two sides will clash, is
consequences of Acts/Other Acts acceptable? based on the argument that Russia (R) has a distal goal of
We manually analyzed the 33-paragraph article on the election of a pro-R government in the Ukraine, which
Russia’s global strategy as containing the following is consistent with the value of R having increased global
sequence of instances of our schemes: Plan Distraction, influence; R has a proximal goal of fomenting clashes
Coercion, critical question of Coercion, Resist Coercion, between the two sides (consistent with that distal goal); R
Plan Deception, Inferred Plan, Coercion, Increasing inserted provocateurs into the march in order to bring
Boldness, Coercion, Inferred Plan, Inferred Plan, Resist about clashes between the two sides when they meet in the
Coercion, Practical Reasoning, Avoid Negative capital; therefore clashes will occur between the Orthodox
Consequences, Avoid Negative Consequences, and and Nationalists in the capital (due to R’s intervention).
Practical Reasoning. Schemes that we identified in other The next prediction, that the current anti-R government
articles include Inferred Positive/Negative Appraisal and will lose popular support, is based on the argument that R
Behavior Pattern. (While most of the scheme names are has the distal goal described above; R has a proximal goal
suggestive of their purpose, it should be noted that the of loss of popular support for the anti-R government
name ‘Practical Reasoning’ is used in argumentation (consistent with that distal goal); clashes will occur
theory to refer to an argument for a plan of action.) Since between the Orthodox and Nationalists in the capital (due
the schemes were derived from analysis of expert-written to R’s intervention); therefore the current anti-R
reports, they should be helpful to students and analysts in government will lose popular support (due to R’s
creating arguments of their own or for analyzing the intervention). The final prediction, that a pro-R
arguments of others. government will be elected, is based on the argument that
R has the distal goal described above; R has a proximal
goal of the election of a pro-R government (identical to
New Argument Scheme for AT that distal goal); that the anti-R government will lose
Although the scheme set developed for AVIZE was not popular support (due to R’s intervention); a group of pro-
based on analysis of examples of anticipatory thinking, R candidates are available to run for office; therefore a
two of the schemes – Increasing Boldness and Behavior pro-R government will be elected (due to R’s
Pattern – could be used for AT. Here we propose that by intervention).
manually analyzing examples, additional schemes useful This chain of arguments is summarized in Figure 1. By
for AT could be identified. For example, now we will convention, premises are connected by an upward
consider a report written several years ago warning of a pointing arrow to a conclusion. The name of the scheme
Russian attempt to influence the election of a pro-Russian (IC2E) appears to the right of the arrow. Entailments of
government in the Ukraine. The report noted that a large conclusions are connected by horizontal arrows labeled
march of Orthodox supporters was headed to the capital, ‘Entails’. For example, the claim that Russian intervention
where they would be met by Nationalist supporters. It will cause the two groups to clash entails the claim that
stated that there was evidence that the march had been the two groups will clash.
infiltrated by provocateurs and predicted that clashes Any of the arguments in the chain could be challenged
between the two groups would ensue, leading to a loss of by providing counterarguments or posing critical
popular support for the current anti-Russian government, questions. We propose at least the following critical
resulting in the election of a pro-Russian government. questions for IC2E. Note that the last three questions refer
This anticipation of possible future events could be to the arguer’s beliefs about the Actor’s beliefs.
modeled with a chain of arguments, each of which can be
analyzed in terms of the Intentional Cause to Effect IC2E Critical Questions
(IC2E) scheme, which we define as follows. 1. How reliable is the source of each premise?
2. How likely is each premise?
3. How likely is the Proximal Goal to be achieved by
Intentional Cause to Effect (IC2E)
Actor’s Intervention in the given Circumstances?
Premises:
Are there factors unknown or ignored by Actor
1. Actor has Distal Goal consistent with Value.
that may impede its success?
2. Actor has Proximal Goal, consistent with that
4. In Actor’s view is Proximal Goal likely to be
Distal Goal.
achieved by Intervention in the Circumstances?
3. Actor does (will do) Intervention to bring about
5. In Actor’s view is Intervention feasible in the
Proximal Goal.
Circumstances?
4. Intervention is (will be) feasible in the then present
6. In Actor’s view are the consequences of
Circumstances.
Intervention acceptable, or would they inhibit
Conclusion: Actor causes (will cause) Proximal Goal to be
Actor from performing Intervention?
achieved.
Figure 1 shows a challenge to the argument at the
bottom of the tree using the first critical question, i.e., how
reliable is the evidence that R has inserted provocateurs? Conclusion
Also, the third critical question is shown as challenging
The Intentional Cause to Effect scheme defined above
the final (top-most) argument. Furthermore, by adding
could be added to the scheme set of AVIZE to support
IC2E to a repertoire of argument schemes, one may build
AT. By analyzing further examples of AT, other relevant
complex arguments involving more than just causal
schemes could be identified. A graphical tool such as
reasoning about an actor’s intentions. For example, as
AVIZE could be used by students and analysts to make
shown in Figure 1, the premise that R has a distal goal of
AT assumptions, claims, and challenges visible. In the
the election of a pro-R government could be justified itself
long term, using argument schemes for AT such as IC2E
by a Behavior Pattern argument, i.e., based upon R’s past
to generate arguments automatically, it may even be
behavior in other countries. Because of the potential
possible to use them to hypothesize future events.
complexity of the arguments for and against alternative
scenarios, we propose that an argument diagramming tool,
such as one described in the next section, be used to References
visually support individual or collaborative construction,
evaluation, and communication of arguments in AT. Green, N.L, Branon, M., and Roosje, L. 2019. Argument
Schemes and Visualization Software for Critical Thinking
about International Politics. Argument and Computation
Argument Diagramming in AVIZE 10(1), 41-53.
AVIZE 1 was designed to support critical thinking by a
Loll, F. and Pinkwart, N. 2013. LASAD: Flexible
process in which users must evaluate possibly conflicting
Representations for Computer-Based Collaborative
evidence from a variety of sources such as different print
Argumentation. International Journal of Human-
or broadcast news organizations; construct a graphical
Computer Interaction 71(1), 91-109.
representation of arguments for a hypothesis using that
evidence and argument schemes; challenge the arguments;
Pioch, N.J. and Everett, J.O. 2006. POLESTAR –
and defend the argument against the challenges. As shown
Collaborative Knowledge Management and Sensemaking
in Figure 2, potential evidence (with accompanying
Tools for Intelligence Analysts. CIKM 2006, 513-521.
metadata such as source) is presented in a panel on the left
side of the screen. Argument scheme definitions and
Schrag, R., Wright, E., Kerr, R. Johnson, et al. 2016.
critical questions are presented in a panel on the right
Probabilistic Argument Maps for Intelligence Analysis.
hand side of the screen. The center of the screen is a drag-
CMNA 2016.
and-drop style argument diagram construction workspace.
Figure 3 shows an example of an argument so constructed.
Shum, S.B., Selvin, A.M., Shierhuis, M., Conklin, J., et al.
2006. Hypermedia support for argumentation-based
Related Work rationale 4: 111-132.
A variety of argument diagramming tools have been Tecuci, Schum, Marcu, and Boicu. 2016. Intelligence
developed to support critical thinking (Van Gelder, 2007; Analysis as Discovery of Evidence, Hypotheses, and
Shum et al. 2006; Loll and Pinkwart 2013). Some Arguments. Cambridge University Press.
comprehensive intelligence analysis systems also provide
tools for argument diagramming (Toniolo et al. 2015; Toniolo, A., Norman, T.J., Etuk, A., Cerutti, F., et al.
Pioch and Everett 2006; Schrag et al. 2016; Tecuci et al. 2015. Supporting Reasoning with Different Types of
2016). However none of these tools provide argument Evidence in Intelligence Analysis. AAMAS 2015, 781-9.
schemes tailored to plan recognition in international
affairs (as in AVIZE) or anticipatory thinking involving Van Gelder, T. 2007. The rationale for Rationale. Law,
intentions in that domain, e.g., the IC2E scheme. Probability and Risk 6(1-4), 23-42.
1
A prototype implementation of AVIZE is available at Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. 2008.
https://github.com/greennl/AVIZE. Work is underway to Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
improve the tool for use in an undergraduate AI Ethics
Weinberger, K. 2016. Putin sets the stage for the
course using a set of argument schemes tailored to AI
incoming U.S. administration. Institute for the Study of
Ethics.
War. (Downloaded from www.understandingwar.org.)
Figure 1. Summary of chain of IC2E arguments in Ukraine example. (‘PxGoal’ stands for ‘proximal goal’. Challenges are shown connected by links with a
crossed circle.)
R will cause pro-R gov to Entails pro-R gov will be
be elected elected CQ: PxGoal3
not likely to
succeed …
IC2E
R has [PxGoal3: pro-R R will cause anti-R gov Entails Feasible
Anti-R gov will lose
gov to be elected] to lose popular support
popular support
IC2E
Entails
R has [PxGoal2: anti-R R will cause clashes Clashes between O & N Feasible
gov to lose support] between O and N will occur
IC2E
R has [PxGoal1: clashes R inserted provocateurs to CQ: not reliable Feasible
between O & N] bring about clashes …
R has [Distal Goal: pro-R gov to be Behavior Pattern R had similar goal in other
elected] consistent with [Value: countries …
increased R global influence]
Figure 2. Screen shot of AVIZE. Evidence panel is on left. For illustration, all the evidence snippets were extracted from (Weinberger 2016). It is assumed that
in actual use, text in the evidence panel will have been selected manually or automatically from multiple, possibly conflicting sources. Argument scheme
definitions are on right. Clicking on scheme name causes scheme template to appear in diagramming workspace to be filled in by user.
Figure 3. Screen shot of AVIZE with argument diagram in center and side panels minimized. Argument that U.S. should resist R coercion to not oppose R’s
global expansion has been constructed using two argument schemes from the right hand panel. Relevant evidence has been dragged from the evidence panel and
attached to the premises.