David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 17 (4):421-450 (2003)
This article begins with an introduction to defeasible (nonmonotonic) reasoning and a brief description of a computer program, EVID, which can perform such reasoning. I then explain, and illustrate with examples, how this program can be applied in computational representations of ordinary dialogic argumentation. The program represents the beliefs and doubts of the dialoguers, and uses these propositional attitudes, which can include commonsense defeasible inference rules, to infer various changing conclusions as a dialogue progresses. It is proposed that computational representations of this kind are a useful tool in the analysis of dialogic argumentation, and, in particular, demonstrate the important role of defeasible reasoning in everyday arguments using commonsense reasoning
|Keywords||commonsense reasoning computational logic defeasible reasoning dialogue logic nonmonotonic reasoning rhetoric|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mike Oaksford & Ulrike Hahn (2006). Non-Monotonicity and Informal Reasoning: Comment on Ferguson (2003). Argumentation 20 (2):245-251.
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Causey (1991). The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
Douglas Walton (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies. Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
Henry Prakken & John Horty (2012). An Appreciation of John Pollock's Work on the Computational Study of Argument. Argument and Computation 3 (1):1 - 19.
G. Aldo Antonelli (2005). Grounded Consequence for Defeasible Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk (1995). The Computational Value of Debate in Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 9 (2):305-342.
D. Gabbay & P. Smets (eds.) (1998). Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol 3. Kluwer Academic Pub.
Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari (2007). Modelling Inference in Argumentation Through Labelled Deduction: Formalization and Logical Properties. [REVIEW] Logica Universalis 1 (1):93-124.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Henry Prakken (1996). Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
John F. Horty (2001). Argument Construction and Reinstatement in Logics for Defeasible Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):1-28.
Timothy R. Colburn (1991). Program Verification, Defeasible Reasoning, and Two Views of Computer Science. Minds and Machines 1 (1):97-116.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads13 ( #254,909 of 1,790,127 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #319,627 of 1,790,127 )
How can I increase my downloads?