Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Practical Reasoning

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, the defeasible argumentation scheme for practical reasoning (Walton 1990) is revised. To replace the old scheme, two new schemes are presented, each with a matching set of critical questions. One is a purely instrumental scheme, while the other is a more complex scheme that takes values into account. It is argued that a given instance of practical reasoning can be evaluated, using schemes and sets of critical questions, in three ways: by attacking one or more premises of the argument, by attacking the inferential link between the premises and conclusion, or by mounting a counter-argument. It is argued that such an evaluation can be carried out in many cases using an argument diagram structure in which all components of the practical reasoning in the case are represented as premises, conclusions, and inferential links between them that can be labeled as argumentation schemes. This system works if every critical question can be classified as a assumption of or an exception to the original argument. However, it is also argued that this system does not work in all cases, namely those where epistemic closure is problematic because of intractable disputes about burden of proof.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. W. D. Ross, Oxford, Oxford.

  • Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2004a, ‘Justifying Practical Reasoning’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational–Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004a), ECAI, Valencia, Spain, pp. 87–90.

  • Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2005, ‘Persuasive Political Argument’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), eds. F. Grasso, C. Reed and R. Kibble, Edinburgh, 2005, pp. 44–51.

  • Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2004b, ‘PARMENIDES: Facilitating Democratic Debate’, Electronic Government, ed. R. Traunmuller, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 3183. Third International Conference on eGovernment (EGOV 2004), DEXA 2004, Zaragoza, Spain.

  • Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2005, ‘Agent Decision Making Using Argumentation About Actions’, Technical Report ULCS-05–006, University of Liverpool, Computer Science Department.

  • Robert Audi: 1989, Practical Reasoning, London, Routledge.

  • Bench-Capon Trevor: 2003a, ‘Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks’, Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448

  • Bench-Capon Trevor: 2003b, ‘Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue between Parties without a Consensus about Values’, Informal Logic 22, 2310245.

  • Bratman Michael: 1987, Intention, Plans and Practical Reason, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1987.

  • Bratman Michael E., David J. Israel, and Martha E. Pollack: 1988, ‘Plans and Resource-bounded Practical Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 4, 349–355.

  • Clarke David S., Jr. (1985) Practical Inferences. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Girle Rod, David Hitchcock, Peter McBurney, and Bart Verheij: 2003, ‘Decision Support for Practical Reasoning: A Theoretical and Computational Perspective’, in (eds.), Chris Reed and Timothy J. Norman, Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, Dordrecht, Kluwer 58–84.

  • Gordon Thomas F.: 2003, ‘Introductory Tutorial: Artificial Intelligence Models of Legal Argumentation’, ECCO Competence Center, Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin.

  • Gordon Thomas F. and Nikos Karacapilidis: 1997, ‘The Zeno Argumentation Framework’, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, 10–18.

  • Gordon Thomas F. and Gernot Richter: 2002, ‘Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy’, in Roland Traunmuller and Lalus Lenk, (eds.), eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV), Aix-en-Provence, Springer Verlag, pp. 248–255.

  • Gordon Thomas F. and Douglas Walton: 2005, ‘Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument’, Paper Accepted for the Workshop on Argumentation and AI, Bologna, International Conference on AI and Law.

  • Hitchcock David (2002) ‘Pollock on Practical Reasoning’. Informal Logic 22, 247–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock David, Peter McBurney and S. Parsons: 2001, ‘A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues’, in H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair and R. H. Johnson (eds.), Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study f Argumentation (OSSA 2001), compact disk. Also available on Peter McBurney’s web page at the University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Science: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/

  • Horty John, and Nuel D. Belnap: 1995, ‘The Deliberative Stit: A Study of Action, Omission, Ability and Obligation’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, 583–644.

  • Paglieri Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi: 2005, ‘Arguments as Belief Structures’, in David Hitchcock (ed.), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University 18–21 May, 2005, Hamilton, Ontario pp. 356–367.

  • Pereleman Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

  • Pollock, John L.: 1995, Cognitive Carpentry, Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press

  • Prakken Henry, Chris Reed and Douglas Walton: 2005, ‘Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 6–11, 2005, Bologna, Italy, New York, The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), pp. 115–124.

  • Reed Chris, and Glenn Rowe: 2005, Araucaria, Version 3. Available free at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/.

  • Reed Chris, and Timothy J. Norman: 2003, Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, Kluwer Dordrecht.

  • Reiter Raymond (1980) ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle John R. (2001) Rationality in Action. The MIT Press Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerberg Krister (1984) ‘Towards an Exact Philosophy of Action’. Topoi 3, 75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin Stephen (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart (2003) ‘Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic’. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart (2005) Virtual Arguments. The Hague, Asser Press

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright Georg H. (1963a) The Varieties of Goodness. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright Georg H. (1963b) Norm and Action. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright Georg H. (1972) ‘On So-Called Practical Inference’. Acta Sociologica 15: 39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (1989) A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Rowman & Littlefield Savage, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (1995) A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Studies in Argumentation Series). Lawrence Erllaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (1997) ‘Actions and Inconsistency: the Closure Problem of Practical Reasoning’. In: Ghita Holmstrom-Hintikka, Raimo Tuomela (eds) Contemporary Action Theory, Vol. 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 159–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (2004) Abductive Reasoning. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas, David Godden (2005) ‘The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes’. In: David Hitchcock (eds) The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University 18–21 May, 2005. Hamilton, Ontario, pp. 476–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge Michael (2000) Reasoning about Rational Agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge Michael (2002) MultiAgent Systems. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3B 2E9

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D. Evaluating Practical Reasoning. Synthese 157, 197–240 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9157-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9157-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation