Graduate studies at Western
Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):1-28 (2001)
|Abstract||This paper points out some problems with two recent logical systems – one due to Prakken and Sartor, the other due to Kowalski and Toni – designedfor the representation of defeasible arguments in general, but with a specialemphasis on legal reasoning.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Causey (2003). Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
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.
Fernando Tohmé, Claudio Delrieux & Otávio Bueno (2011). Defeasible Reasoning + Partial Models: A Formal Framework for the Methodology of Research Programs. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 16 (1):47-65.
Frederick Maier & Donald Nute (2010). Well-Founded Semantics for Defeasible Logic. Synthese 176 (2):243 - 274.
G. Aldo Antonelli (1996). Defeasible Reasoning as a Cognitive Model. In Krister Segerberg (ed.), The Parikh Project. Seven Papers in Honour of Rohit. Uppsala Prints & Preprints in Philosophy.
Douglas Walton (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies. Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
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.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
Robert L. Causey (1991). The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,563 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?