Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of 'Randomized Clinical Trial' as an argument scheme for medical science

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)77-89
Number of pages13
JournalArgument and Computation
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Argument Interchange Format
  • Forms Ontology
  • Randomized Clinical Trials
  • Warrant
  • expert reasoning
  • inference rules
  • practical reasoning scheme
  • warranting devices

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Linguistics and Language
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Computational Mathematics
  • Artificial Intelligence

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of 'Randomized Clinical Trial' as an argument scheme for medical science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this