Argumentation 25 (2):171-184 (2011)
|Abstract||A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of dialogical interaction, in which human or artificial agents aim to resolve a conflict of opinion by verbal means. Rules for conducting such dialogues and criteria for their quality are part of dialogue theory. Usually, formal accounts of argumentation dialogues in logic and artificial intelligence presuppose an argument-based logic. That is, the ways in which dialogue participants support and attack claims are modelled as the construction of explicit arguments and counterarguments (in the inferential sense). However, in this paper formal models of argumentation dialogues are discussed that do not presuppose arguments as inferential structures. The motivation for such models is that there are forms of inference that are not most naturally cast in the form of arguments (such as abduction, statistical reasoning and coherence-based reasoning) but that can still be the subject of argumentative dialogue. Some recent work in artificial intelligence is discussed which embeds non-argumentative inference in an argumentative dialogue system, and some general observations are drawn from this discussion|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Henry Prakken (2011). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
Henry Prakken (2008). A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
J. Anthony Blair (1998). The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
J. Katzav & C. A. Reed (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Arno R. Lodder (1999). DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Kluwer.
Douglas Walton (2011). The Structure of Argumentation in Health Product Messages. Argument and Computation 1 (3):179-198.
Paola Cantu' & Italo Testa (2011). Algorithms and Arguments: The Foundational Role of the ATAI-Question. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192-203). Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
Christof Rapp & Tim Wagner (2013). On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 27 (1):7-30.
Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens (2012). Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument? Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
Douglas Walton (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument From Waste. Argumentation 16 (4):473-503.
Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari (2007). Modelling Inference in Argumentation Through Labelled Deduction: Formalization and Logical Properties. Logica Universalis 1 (1).
Harvey Siegel (1999). Argument Quality and Cultural Difference. Argumentation 13 (2):183-201.
Added to index2011-04-24
Total downloads22 ( #56,170 of 549,069 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,069 )
How can I increase my downloads?