David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
AI and Society 23 (3):353-377 (2006)
In this article a dialectical model for practical reasoning within a community, based on the Generic/Actual Argument Model (GAAM) is advanced and its application to deliberative dialogue discussed. The GAAM, offers a dynamic template for structuring knowledge within a domain of discourse that is connected to and regulated by a community. The paper demonstrates how the community accepted generic argument structure acts to normatively influence both admissible reasoning and the progression of dialectical reasoning between participants. It is further demonstrated that these types of deliberation dialogues supported by the GAAM comply with criteria for normative principles for deliberation, specifically, Alexyâs rules for discourse ethics and Hitchcockâs Principles of Rational Mutual Inquiry. The connection of reasoning to the community in a documented and transparent structure assists in providing best justified reasons, principles of deliberation and ethical discourse which are important advantages for reasoning communities
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas F. Gordon (1993). The Pleadings Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (4):239-292.
Trudy Govier (1991). A Practical Study of Argument. Wadsworth Pub. Co..
John Pollock (1987). Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Andrew Stranieri, John Zeleznikow, Mark Gawler & Bryn Lewis (1999). A Hybrid Rule – Neural Approach for the Automation of Legal Reasoning in the Discretionary Domain of Family Law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):153-183.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gerhard Heyer (1988). Generic Generalisations, Discourse Representation Structures, and Knowledge Representation. In Jakob Hoepelman (ed.), Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference Workshop on Discourse Representation, Dialogue Tableaux, and Logic Programming. M. Niemeyer Verlag.
Jane Macoubrie (2003). Logical Argument Structures in Decision-Making. Argumentation 17 (3):291-313.
Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley (1996). A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.
Gerald Gaus (2008). The (Severe) Limits of Deliberative Democracy as the Basis for Political Choice. Theoria 55 (117):26-53.
Rob McCormack (2008). Philosophical Writing: Prefacing as Professing. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (7):832-855.
Stephen Cohen (2004). The Nature of Moral Reasoning: The Framework and Activities of Ethical Deliberation, Argument, and Decision-Making. Oxford University Press.
Gilbert Harman, Kelby Mason & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2010). Moral Reasoning. In John Michael Doris (ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford University Press.
Edward Stein (1994). Rationality and Reflective Equilibrium. Synthese 99 (2):137-72.
Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
Jessica Brown (2012). Practial Reasoning, Decision Theory and Anti-Intellectualism. Episteme 9 (1):1-20.
Patrick Saint-Dizier (2012). Processing Natural Language Arguments with the Platform. Argument and Computation 3 (1):49 - 82.
Henry Prakken (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Henri Prade (1996). New Trends and Open Problems in Fuzzy Logic and Approximate Reasoning. Theoria 11 (3):109-121.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-30
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?