SADFace supports parts of argument, atoms that act as premises and conclusions, and the schemes that relate them. However there are recognised arguments within specific domains, e.g. the "squandering", "symmetry", and "no subject of harm" arguments in the Epicureans' arguments about fear of death. Although these are examples of stereotypical patterns of reasoning, and should therefore include standard schemes, they are also domain specific examples of recurrent arguments that have their own identity independent of underlying argumentation schemes.
This specific squandering argument has meaning for those working with Epicurean arguments but not necessarily to anyone outside of the domain and capturing this kind of meta-data about the argument and domain is very useful as part of the analytical process.
We should be able to capture this idea within SADFace showing that "these arguments are part of a known, identified structure within the wider domain".
SADFace supports parts of argument, atoms that act as premises and conclusions, and the schemes that relate them. However there are recognised arguments within specific domains, e.g. the "squandering", "symmetry", and "no subject of harm" arguments in the Epicureans' arguments about fear of death. Although these are examples of stereotypical patterns of reasoning, and should therefore include standard schemes, they are also domain specific examples of recurrent arguments that have their own identity independent of underlying argumentation schemes.
This specific squandering argument has meaning for those working with Epicurean arguments but not necessarily to anyone outside of the domain and capturing this kind of meta-data about the argument and domain is very useful as part of the analytical process.
We should be able to capture this idea within SADFace showing that "these arguments are part of a known, identified structure within the wider domain".