Defeaters and Eliminative Argumentation in Assurance 2.0

TL;DR

This paper discusses the integration of defeaters and eliminative argumentation into Assurance 2.0, enhancing the robustness of assurance cases through structured debate and documentation.

Contribution

It introduces mechanisms for representing and assessing defeaters and eliminative argumentation within Assurance 2.0 and its tool support, Clarissa/ASCE.

Findings

Defeaters enable recording doubts and counterarguments in assurance cases.

Multiple levels of defeaters support nuanced debate and assessment.

Eliminative argumentation offers an alternative approach to traditional assurance.

Abstract

A traditional assurance case employs a positive argument in which reasoning steps, grounded on evidence and assumptions, sustain a top claim that has external significance. Human judgement is required to check the evidence, the assumptions, and the narrative justifications for the reasoning steps; if all are assessed good, then the top claim can be accepted. A valid concern about this process is that human judgement is fallible and prone to confirmation bias. The best defense against this concern is vigorous and skeptical debate and discussion in the manner of a dialectic or Socratic dialog. There is merit in recording aspects of this discussion for the benefit of subsequent developers and assessors. Defeaters are a means doing this: they express doubts about aspects of the argument and can be developed into subcases that confirm or refute the doubts, and can record them as documentation to assist future consideration. This report describes how defeaters, and multiple levels of defeaters, should be represented and assessed in Assurance 2.0 and its Clarissa/ASCE tool support. These mechanisms also support eliminative argumentation, which is a contrary approach to assurance, favored by some, that uses a negative argument to refute all reasons why the top claim could be false.