Modelling inference in argumentation through labelled deduction: Formalization and logical properties [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Logica Universalis 1 (1):93-124 (2007)
. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has long dealt with the issue of finding a suitable formalization for commonsense reasoning. Defeasible argumentation has proven to be a successful approach in many respects, proving to be a confluence point for many alternative logical frameworks. Different formalisms have been developed, most of them sharing the common notions of argument and warrant. In defeasible argumentation, an argument is a tentative (defeasible) proof for reaching a conclusion. An argument is warranted when it ultimately prevails over other conflicting arguments. In this context, defeasible consequence relationships for modelling argument and warrant as well as their logical properties have gained particular attention. This article analyzes two non-monotonic inference operators Carg and Cwar intended for modelling argument construction and dialectical analysis (warrant), respectively. As a basis for such analysis we will use the LDSar framework, a unifying approach to computational models of argument using Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS). In the context of this logical framework, we show how labels can be used to represent arguments as well as argument trees, facilitating the definition and study of non-monotonic inference operators, whose associated logical properties are studied and contrasted. We contend that this analysis provides useful comparison criteria that can be extended and applied to other argumentation frameworks.
|Keywords||Defeasible Argumentation Knowledge Representation Non-monotonic Inference Labelled Deduction|
|Categories||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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nancy Green (2010). Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
James B. Freeman (2001). Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective. Argumentation 15 (4):397-423.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Robert L. Causey (2003). Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
Robert Alexy (2000). Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
Jan-R. Sieckmann (2003). Why Non-Monotonic Logic is Inadequate to Represent Balancing Arguments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):211-219.
Henry Prakken (2011). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
Douglas Walton (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies. Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #297,395 of 1,102,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,833 of 1,102,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?