Graduate studies at Western
Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300 (2012)
|Abstract||In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices that may be useful in cases in which there is insufficient evidence to prove the claim to an appropriate standard of proof|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Fabrizio Macagno (2012). Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions. Argumentation 26 (2):233-265.
F. Macagno (2010). Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof. In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications.
David Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
Douglas Walton with Chris Reed, The Carneades Argumentation Framework: Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions.
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.
Fred J. Kauffeld (1998). Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation 12 (2):245-266.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law. Cambridge University Press.
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.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Karen Petroski (2008). The Public Face of Presumptions. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 388-401.
Steven O. Kimbrough & Hua Hua (1991). On Nonmonotonic Reasoning with the Method of Sweeping Presumptions. Minds and Machines 1 (4):393-416.
Douglas Walton (2008). A Dialogical Theory of Presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Kurt Nutting (2002). Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law. Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Henry Prakken (2008). A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken (2012). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation. Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
Added to index2012-08-04
Total downloads7 ( #142,740 of 749,720 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #62,995 of 749,720 )
How can I increase my downloads?