David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296 (1996)
In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.
|Keywords||argumentation default reasoning priority|
|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
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.
Robert C. Moore (1985). Semantic Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic. Artificial Intelligence 25:75-94.
Thomas F. Gordon (1993). The Pleadings Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (4):239-292.
Ray Reiter (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:81-137.
Citations of this work BETA
Henry Prakken (2008). Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner (2012). A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
Similar books and articles
Aleksander Peczenik (1996). Jumps and Logic in the Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):297-329.
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.
Douglas Walton (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies. Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
Henry Prakken (1996). Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
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 (2011). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
Robert L. Causey (2003). Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #312,151 of 1,911,291 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #269,315 of 1,911,291 )
How can I increase my downloads?