Formal Definitions Of

Reason Fallacies To
Aid Defect
Exploration In
Argument Gaming

G.S. Mahalakshmi, Lecturer, Anna University, Chennai 25

mahalakshmi@cs.annauniv.edu, gs_maha@yahoo.co.in

Waltons definition of Fallacy

A

fallacy is

an argument (or at least something that

purports to be an argument);
that falls short of some standard of
correctness;
poses a serious obstacle to the realization of
the goal of a dialogue.

For

Walton, a fallacy is fundamentally

negative; it involves a lapse, error,
failure, and deception.

Argument Gaming

knowledge sharing - exchange of ideas to promote learning - method

of interaction argument gaming

subject of discussion validated with right justifications and by

eliminating false beliefs

False beliefs proposed in arguments (which support the argument) - need

to be identified

Reasons support subject of discussion in argument false reasons - Reason

fallacies

To identify reason fallacies or defects or holes is reasoning from argumentation

Indian philosophical perspective tarka methodology

Motivation invariable concomitance

knowledge of co-existence free from fallacious knowledge

Applied when convincing others of a certain issue

When the sun is at the top, vertically over your head, you infer that the time is around 12.00 noon.

When a student answers Penguins fly, the teacher infers the students lack of knowledge about Penguin

Interpretation of arguments in

This hill has fire (statement)

Because it has smoke (reason)

Lake subject; fire probandum or object to be inferred

Because it has smoke (reason)

Oven similar example

This lake has fire (statement)

Smoke probans or Reason

Since whatever has smoke has fire e.g. an oven (example)

Hill subject; fire probandum or object to be inferred

Smoke probans or Reason

Since whatever has smoke has fire e.g. an oven (example)

Oven similar example

May not be a smoke, it may be fog, so statement is

disproved

Need for exploration of reason

fallacies

Modern argumentation

Argument fallacies

How an argument is put forth, rather than its NL

semantic content

Argument by expert opinion, straw man fallacy etc.

No rule framed surveyed and studied only by examples

Conceptual Semantic analysis needed

Identifying abstract semantics by using relations between
concepts that form the argument
By exploring relations between parts of argument
concepts (probans, probandum, subject)

Invariable concomitance, inherence, causal, contact-contact

etc.

Possibility of rules standards inspired by Tarka Sastra

Nyaya - Argument Defects

Defective Reasoning - 5
tells how (or how not) to interpret a proposition
a subject, which prevents inferential knowledge

Definitions of defects

Straying

concept to which the subject is related to is not present or not

related as said, with the subject

Stultified

Two valid reasons for presence and absence of the thing to be

proved

Unestablished

vista rinchu

Reason is pervaded by negation of the thing to be proved

Antithetical

Reason which is present in a place where there is absence of the

thing to be proved

Adverse

daari tappina vibhedhinchina

avi vekam gaa kanipinchu

Negation of probandum is established by another proof

Need for defect categorisation

Concept and relation centric

would provide more information about reason fallacies present in
the proposed argument

Formal definitions of defects

Our idea categories of Nyaya

defects

Defect Table - Possible defects classified per

defect category

Defect classification,
identification
Nyaya
Defect
types
Argument
Analysis

Defect
Categories
Defect Table

Defect set

Sample arguments
Arg.
Id

Argument

Subject

object of
inference

reason

sky_lotus has fragrance

sky_lotus

fragrance

Nil

artificial-rose has fragrance

artificialfragrance
rose

Nil

lily has fragrance

lily

fragrance

Nil

mountain has fire due_to smoke

mountain

fire

smoke

penguin fly because it is-a bird

penguin

fly

Bird

bats are viviparous because they are mammal

bat

viviparous

mammal

Falls does not have fire when there is smoke

falls

fire

smoke

Falls does not have fire when there is smoke

falls

fire

smoke

Argument defects
Arg.
Id
1

Status in KB

Defect Category & Type

Status in KB

concept doesn't exists

HC1
Unestablished to subject

concept doesn't exists

HC7
Unestablished to itself

concept exists,
quality(negation)

concept exists,
quality(negation)

concept and quality exists

No Defect

concept and quality exists

Fire, smoke exists as concepts. No

invariable relation

HC8
Unestablished to invariance

Fire, smoke exists as concepts. No

invariable relation

Penguin and bird exists as concept.

Exclusive quality: fly in negation

HC4
Straying Uncommon

Penguin and bird exists as concept.

Exclusive quality: fly in negation

Bat, mammal and bird exist as

concept. Mammal-viviparous, bird~viviparous

HC2, HC5
Antithetical

Bat, mammal and bird exist as

concept. Mammal-viviparous, bird~viviparous

Falls and smoke exist as concept.

Absence of fire as concept. Direct
relation between fire and smoke

HC1, HC5
Straying Common

Falls and smoke exist as concept.

Absence of fire as concept. Direct
relation between fire and smoke

HC1, HC6

Falls and smoke exist as concept.

Absence of fire as concept. Invariable

fragrance

as

Falls and smoke exist as concept.

Absence of fire as concept. Invariable

fragrance

as

Future enhancements
Other

provisional definitions of
invariable concomitance
More Reason fallacies in Buddhist
philosophy
Coverage of argument fallacies

Key References
1.

Gautama, The Nyaya Sutras, translated by S.C. Vidyabhusana, edited by

Nanda Lal Sinha, Sacred Book of the Hindus, Allahabad, (1930). Reprinted in
1990. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

2.

C. L. Hamblin. Fallacies. London:Methuen, (1970).

3.

Jaakko Hintikka, Socratic Epistemology: Explorations of Knowledge-Seeking

by Questioning, Cambridge University Press, 239pp., (2007)

4.

G.S.Mahalakshmi and T.V.Geetha: Navya-Nyaya Approach to Defect

Exploration in Argument Gaming for Knowledge Sharing, In proc. of
International Conf. on Logic, Navya-Nyaya & Applications - A Homage To
Bimal Krishna Matilal (ICLNNA 07), Jadavpur Univ., Calcutta, India, (2007).

5.

Sathis Chandra Vidyabhusana, A History of Indian Logic Ancient,

Medieaeval and Modern Schools, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd.,
Delhi, India, ISBN:81-208-0565-8. pp. 84, (1988).

6.

Swami Virupakshananda: Tarka Samgraha, Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras

(1994).

7.

Toshihiro Wada, Invariable Concomitance in Navya-Nyaya, Sri Garib Dass

Oriental Series No. 101, Indological and Oriental Publishers, New Delhi,
India, (1990).

8.

Walton, D. and Woods, J., Argument: The Logic of the fallacies, Toronto:

Thank You

Gautama
Ontology editor
based on Nyaya

G.S. Mahalakshmi, Lecturer, Anna University, Chennai 25

mahalakshmi@cs.annauniv.edu, gs_maha@yahoo.co.in

Idea

Indian logic based approach of knowledge representation

classifies the world knowledge into concepts, and relations, both

enriched with special qualities.
Nyaya Sastra

Nyaya logics

categorization of world knowledge

elaborate in tapping the minute details in the defined knowledge units.
mechanism which defines the concept and relation elements of ontology
based on the epistemology of Nyaya-Vaisheshika school of Indian logic.

NORM

an ontology reference model based on Nyaya logic

syntax and semantics of NORM rdf.
To overcome the difficulty involved

we propose Gautama,

Gautama

a tool for editing the ontology based on Nyaya logics.

Nyaya Logics - Argument

A=<

Aid,

CS,COI,CR,RS-OI,RS-R,RR-OI,Astate,Astatus,Astr>

Aid - Argument index

CS,COI,CR - concept categories;
RS-OI,RS-R,RR-OI - relation categories;
Astate state of argument;

Astate {premise, inference, conclusion}

Astatus defeat status of arguments;

Astatus{defeated, undefeated, ambiguous, undetermined}

NORM Model

(a)
(b)

(c)

ontology with concepts as nodes and

external relations as edges
a concept with qualities as nodes, internal
relations as thin edges, tangential relations
as dotted edges
a quality with values as nodes, grouping
relations as edges

NORM - Concept
C= <Cname, Ccat, QM,QO,QE,Cpr,Cpar,Ccon>
Cname name of the concept
Ccat={CS,COI,CR}
QM = Quality Mandatory of type Quality Q
QO = Quality optional of type Quality Q
QE = Quality Exceptional of type Quality Q
Cpr = Concept priority weight factor
Cpar= parent concept C, par = 0 to n;

n max. no. of concepts in committed ontology

Ccon = constraint set under which concept C is said to exist;

NORM - Quality
Q=<Qname,Vi,Qcon>

Qname name of the quality

Vi Quality value list;

i = 0 to v, max. no. of values allowed for Qname

Qcon constraint set of Qname

Nyaya-Vaisheshika Qualities

NORM - Relation
R= <Rname,CAq,CBq,Rcat,Rqual,Rpr,Rcon>
Rname name of the relation
CAq, CBq Ccat ;
q = 1 to n; n max. no. of qualities defined for CA, CB in OT;

CA = CB permissible.

Rcat={RS-OI,RS-R,RR-OI}
Rqual={Ici,D,X,Xp},
Ic Invariable concomitance; i = 0-3, over {sym, +Ic, -Ic, Neutral}; D Direct;
X Exclusive; Xp - Exceptional
Rpr = Relation priority weight factor
Rcon = constraint set over defined relations, {Rcon[i], R1, R2}; R1, R2 R.
i=0, reflexive, here R1, R2 = NULL ; i=1,

Gautama tool

Gautama - Description
ILO Visualisation Pane:

Concepts Visualisation Pane:

only the concept hierarchy in the ontology is visualised.

Nodes Entry Pane:

provides controls for entering information about the nodes that are yet to be created

C-C denotes concept-concept; V-V denotes value-value and Q-Q denotes quality-quality.
command buttons provided to add concepts, qualities and values.

Generate RDF button helps in generation of Resource description format

Relations Entry Pane:

roles shall be created - at all levels as per NORM

command buttons for deletion services.

load rdf button to load a pre-defined ontology at once.

Concepts list Pane:

contains icons to save and print the ontology visualisation created in the top left pane of the
editor. In addition, drawing icons have also been provided.

lists all the concepts

specialised concepts first , followed by the generalised concepts.

Quality List Pane:

NORM RDF

<rdf:concept>

<rdf:name>

used to declare the role of a concept / quality

<rdf:category>

used to declare the type of a concept / quality / relation

<rdf:role>

used to create member qualities for a given concept

<rdf:type>

used to create concept axioms

<rdf:quality>

used to create descriptions or definitions for a particular concept

<rdf:axiom>

used to declare the name of a concept / quality / relation.

<rdf:desc>

used to declare a concept prior and after its definition

used to declare the category of relation like external, internal, tangential or

grouping.

<rdf:operator>

used to declare the logical operators like and, or while creating the concept

NDL

Concept-satisfiable

Concept-subsumes

This command has three variations. It either checks whether a concept is related
to another concept, through a particular relation name or through a particular set
of relation categories.

Chk-quality

These commands retrieve the child nodes or parent nodes of the parametric
concept from the ontology hierarchy

Chk-concept-related

These commands list the ancestral / descending concepts in the ontology

hierarchy. Role-ancestors and Role-descendants also have similar purpose.

Sub-concept, Super-concept

This takes two concepts as input, and checks whether the first concept subsumes
the second concept. This is one of the famous reasoning service provided by any
ontology-based reasoner.

Concept ancestors and Concept-descendants

This takes a concept name as the parameter and checks whether the addition of
the concept will not violate the ontology definitions that exist prior to the
execution of this command

This command checks the entire ontology hierarchy to check if the required quality
is available in the ontology

Chk-concept-quality

This command checks the entire ontology hierarchy to check if the particular
concept has the required quality.

Future enhancements
Translation

of NORM RDF into visualised

ontology in Gautama
Improving visualisation
Color coding for qualities and relations
across levels
Merging

two IL ontologies
Automated IL ontology creation from
text passages

Key References

G. Aghila, G.S. Mahalakshmi and Dr. T.V. Geetha, KRIL A

Knowledge Representation System based on Nyaya Shastra using
Extended Description Logics, VIVEK journal, ISSN 0970-1618, Vol.
15, No.3, pp. 3-18, July (2003).

Gautama, The Nyaya Sutras, translated by S.C. Vidyabhusana,

edited by Nanda Lal Sinha, Sacred Book of the Hindus, Allahabad,
(1930). Reprinted in 1990. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Jonardon Ganeri, Indian Logic: A Reader, Published by Routledge,

(2001)

G.S. Mahalakshmi and T.V. Geetha, Reasoning and Evolution of

consistent ontologies using NORM, IJAI, Indian Society for
Development and Environment Research (ISDER), ISSN 0974-0635,
Volume 2, Number S09, pp. 77-94, Spring (2009).

Swami Virupakshananda, Tarka Samgraha, Sri Ramakrishna Math,

Madras, (1994).

Thank You