David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argument and Computation 2 (2-3):131 - 155 (2011)
In this paper, the Carneades argumentation system is extended to represent a procedural view of inquiry in which evidence is marshalled to support or defeat claims to knowledge. The model is a sequence of moves in a collaborative group inquiry in which parties take turns making assertions about what is known or not known, putting forward evidence to support them, and subjecting these moves to criticisms. It is shown how this model of evaluating evidence in an inquiry is based on a defeasible logic using forms of argument that admit exceptions. It is contended that reasoning from absence of knowledge is as important to inquiry as positive reasoning from evidence to knowledge. The philosophical conflict between this view of reasoning about knowledge and the true-belief-plus view is explored by airing objections and replies on both sides
|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
Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang (2013). The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Causey (1991). The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
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.
Douglas Walton (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies. Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
Henry Prakken (1996). Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Isaac Levi (2012). Pragmatism and Inquiry: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press.
Douglas Walton (2006). Rules for Reasoning From Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge. Philosophia 34 (3):355-376.
Timothy R. Colburn (1991). Defeasible Reasoning and Logic Programming. Minds and Machines 1 (4):417-436.
G. Aldo Antonelli (2005). Grounded Consequence for Defeasible Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Robert L. Causey (2003). Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
G. Aldo Antonelli (1996). Defeasible Reasoning as a Cognitive Model. In Krister Segerberg (ed.), The Parikh Project. Seven Papers in Honour of Rohit. Uppsala Prints & Preprints in Philosophy
Added to index2011-12-14
Total downloads22 ( #127,180 of 1,707,725 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #266,161 of 1,707,725 )
How can I increase my downloads?