Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (3):159-189 (1995)
|Abstract||We discuss five kinds of representations of rationales and provide a formal account of how they can alter disputation. The formal model of disputation is derived from recent work in argument. The five kinds of rationales are compilation rationales, which can be represented without assuming domain-knowledge (such as utilities) beyond that normally required for argument. The principal thesis is that such rationales can be analyzed in a framework of argument not too different from what AI already has. The result is a formal understanding of rationales, a partial taxonomy, and a foundation for computer programs that represent and reason with rationales.The five kinds of rationales are as follows: (c)ompression and (s)pecialization, which yield rules, and (d)isputation, which yields a decision. These are modeled as potentially changing the focus of the dispute. Then there are (f)it, a rationale for rules, and (r)esolution, a rationale for decisions. These cannot be modeled as simply; they force disputation to a meta-level, at least temporarily.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Xiaoping Jiang (2010). A Probe Into the Internationalisation of Higher Education in the New Zealand Context. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 (8):881-897.
Christopher Peacocke (1994). Nonconceptual Content: Kinds, Rationales, and Relations. Mind and Language 4 (4):419-29.
Shariffah Zamoon & Shawn P. Curley (2008). Ripped From the Headlines: What Can the Popular Press Teach Us About Software Piracy? Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3):515 - 533.
Scott Soames (2008). Truth and Meaning: In Perspective. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 32 (1):1-19.
Benny Shanon (1991). Representations - Senses and Reasons. Philosophical Psychology 4 (3):355-74.
Steven Keith Tudor (2008). Why Should Remorse Be a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing? Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):241-257.
Richard J. Arneson (1999). Egalitarianism and Responsibility. Journal of Ethics 3 (3):225-247.
Gary R. Weaver (1995). Does Ethics Code Design Matter? Effects of Ethics Code Rationales and Sanctions on Recipients' Justice Perceptions and Content Recall. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (5):367 - 385.
Solomon Feferman (2000). Does Reductive Proof Theory Have a Viable Rationale? Erkenntnis 53 (1-2):63-96.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #201,730 of 548,987 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,987 )
How can I increase my downloads?