Arguing ad nauseam   episode 2
Channel: Ray Feodoroff
Date: 2021-08-13

This short (witty) video introduces the principle of the Dialectic.  Really the story of how the original objection to Toulmin's Rebuttal (and also of Pollock's Undercutters and Underminers) during the design of GSN V1, and then how over 20 years we're at GSN V3 and somehow have rebutted the rebuttal of rebuttal.

The rebutting defeater the will upset the case will, of course, be the Accident.

Dialectic being a stricter form of my use of Dialogical.  

The exec summary is the requirements for the “style” of safety cases, that is the style of argument, has shifted from a monological one sided debate, to the need for a Dialectic.

The short history of case notations is that we started in 1998 with a GSN V1, which is a monological semantic tree based argument, and as of GSN V3 are attempting Dialectic reasoning, obfuscated by Assurance Claim Points.

If we note that Accident models are actually a Dialectic, then we are really talking orientedness. So there is a question as to whether we ever needed claim orientedness, if hazard orientedness has all the necessary qualities GSN V3 and what CAE Assurance 2.0 are now attempting.  That is, hazard orientedness is Dialectic, and exhibits Indefeasibility.

We can thus achieve the confidence required, that no more need be done to defend the argument, by use of a hazard oriented semantic.  This is especially true, since that semantic is the basis for a core safety case pattern – “All hazards are mitigated”.  Was that sincere flattery?

Salmon supplied by artinearth (www.freelancer.co.nz).