David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43 (2003)
In some recent cases in Anglo-American law juries ruled contrary to an expert's testimony even though that testimony was never challenged, contradicted or questioned in the trial. These cases are shown to raise some theoretical questions about formal dialogue systems in computational dialectical systems for legal argumentation of the kind recently surveyed by Bench-Capon (1997) and Hage (2000) in this journal. In such systems, there is a burden of proof, meaning that if the respondent questions an argument, the proponent is obliged to offer some support for it give it up. But what should happen in a formal system of dialogue if the proponent puts forward an argument and the respondent fails to critically question it, and simply moves on to another issue? Is this some kind of fault that should have implications? Should it be taken to imply that, by default, the respondent has conceded the argument? What, if anything, should be the outcome of such a failure to question in a formal dialogue system of argumentation? These questions are considered by examining some legal cases of expert opinion testimony in relation rules for formal dialectical argumentation systems.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jan Albert Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe (2013). The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance. [REVIEW] Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
Jan Albert van Laar & Erik Cw Krabbe (2013). The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance. [REVIEW] Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
Similar books and articles
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
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.
Henry Prakken (2008). A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
Douglas Walton & David Godden (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
Douglas Walton (2008). A Dialogical Theory of Presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
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.
Jean H. M. Wagemans (2011). The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion. Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
Douglas Walton (2004). A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation. Philosophical Explorations 7 (1):71 – 89.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #361,786 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #304,017 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?