Arguing ad nauseum   episode 1
Channel: Ray Feodoroff
Date: 2021-07-23

This short (witty) video introduces the principle argument against rationale being argument.  Really the objection to Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and its notations.

You have to be quick to catch the table flashed up a one point (1:37).  It maps the four classic goal intentions to their companion claims.  That table is an undercutter to the position case based reasoners have adopted, which is that rationale expressed goals are "aspirational" and not argument.  

That position, by case based reasoners, ignores the fact that claims (so-called) are merely the past participle form of the intentional (aka aspirational) goal form.  Using the only four goal intentions you need to get by in life, and as it happens to think about requirements:

Achieve becomes Achieved
Maintain becomes Maintained
Cease becomes Ceased
Avoid becomes Avoided 

This idea about the verb form is an undercutter of the case based reasoner's position, since it shows where the position held by case based reasoners does not hold.  That is, the position of case based reasoners does not hold when you actually understand grammar and goal orientation.  The difference between claims and goals is only the tense of the verb form and not the type or style of argument.

Flashing past you at 1:51 is a simple table, mapping Toulmin's "notation", GSN and CAE notations together via their core semantic elements.   Remembering that Toulmin's "notation" was rejected as suitable for safety cases by case based reasoners, we now find an underminer of that position.   Seems the difference between Toulmin's "notation" and GSN/CAE is merely euphemism.  

We can't, apparently, agree on the lexicon for "argument", but still are playing in the same semantic space as Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and it's notations.  The lexical differences seem to be the crux of the debate offered by case based reasoners, but the lexical differences certainly do not warrant a claim that "rationale" is not argument, given the definition of rationale is, according to case based reasoners, Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and its notations.

Finally at 2:26 we get to the principle rebutter against the case based reasoner's position, since the semantics of GSN (and really of CAE) can be shown to be a sub-set of the ideas from Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering.   Flashed up is the evidence that GSN's solved-by is a euphemism for the ends-means relationship from cognitive science.  CAE merely borrows the means-ends relationship.

The following video plays with orientedness to demonstrate the problem for case based approaches, if they were designed for presenting safety cases.