In this article, we argue for the general importance of normative theories of argument strength. We also provide some evidence based on our recent work on the fallacies as to why Bayesian probability might, in fact, be able to supply such an account. In the remainder of the article we discuss the general characteristics that make a specifically Bayesian approach desirable, and critically evaluate putative flaws of Bayesian probability that have been raised in the argumentation literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hahn et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Informal Logic