Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.Douglas Walton David M. Godden - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    . While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Modelling Last-Act Attempted Crime in Criminal Law.Jiraporn Pooksook, Phan Minh Dung, Ken Satoh & Giovanni Sartor - 2019 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 29 (4):327-357.
    ABSTRACTIn the court of law, a person can be punished for attempting to commit a crime. An open issue in the study of Artificial Intelligence and Law is whether the law of attempts could be formall...
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • When Expert Opinion Evidence Goes Wrong.Douglas Walton - 2019 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 27 (4):369-401.
    This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combining argument schemes with (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasoning About Knowledge Using Defeasible Logic.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Argument and Computation 2 (2-3):131 - 155.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Similarity, Precedent and Argument From Analogy.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (3):217-246.
    In this paper, it is shown (1) that there are two schemes for argument from analogy that seem to be competitors but are not, (2) how one of them is based on a distinctive type of similarity premise, (3) how to analyze the notion of similarity using story schemes illustrated by some cases, (4) how arguments from precedent are based on arguments from analogy, and in many instances arguments from classification, and (5) that when similarity is defined by means of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Analyzing the Simonshaven Case With and Without Probabilities.Bart Verheij - forthcoming - Topics in Cognitive Science.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract.Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
    To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Presumptions in Legal Argumentation.Douglas Walton Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Formalization of the Ad Hominem Argumentation Scheme.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Journal of Applied Logic 8 (1):1-21.
  • Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning.Douglas Walton, Christopher W. Tindale & Thomas F. Gordon - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):85-119.
    Plausible (eikotic) reasoning known from ancient Greek (late Academic) skeptical philosophy is shown to be a clear notion that can be analyzed by argumentation methods, and that is important for argumentation studies. It is shown how there is a continuous thread running from the Sophists to the skeptical philosopher Carneades, through remarks of Locke and Bentham on the subject, to recent research in artificial intelligence. Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. [REVIEW]Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
    In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes.Henry Prakken - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.
    This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (1):322-350.
    To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case.Henry Prakken - forthcoming - Topics in Cognitive Science.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A Scenario Approach to the Simonshaven Case.Peter J. Van Koppen & Anne Ruth Mackor - forthcoming - Topics in Cognitive Science.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Burden of Proof in a Modified Hamblin Dialogue System.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):279-304.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
    An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   68 citations  
  • Argument Schemes for Reasoning About Trust.Simon Parsons, Katie Atkinson, Zimi Li, Peter McBurney, Elizabeth Sklar, Munindar Singh, Karen Haigh, Karl Levitt & Jeff Rowe - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):160-190.
    Trust is a natural mechanism by which an autonomous party, an agent, can deal with the inherent uncertainty regarding the behaviours of other parties and the uncertainty in the information it shares with those parties. Trust is thus crucial in any decentralised system. This paper builds on recent efforts to use argumentation to reason about trust. Specifically, a set of schemes is provided, and abstract patterns of reasoning that apply in multiple situations geared towards trust. Schemes are described in which (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • On a Razor's Edge: Evaluating Arguments From Expert Opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A Bibliography of Douglas Walton's Published Works, 1971-2007.Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):135-147.
    A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-20.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Legal Stories and the Process of Proof.Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3):253-278.
    In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for ‘what happened’ in a case) and legal reasoning (making a decision based on the proof). First we extend the hybrid theory by making the connection with reasoning towards legal consequences. We then emphasise the role of legal stories (as opposed to the factual stories of the hybrid theory). Legal stories provide a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Modeling Critical Questions as Additional Premises.Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon & Scott F. Aikin - unknown
    This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Schemes of Inference, Conflict, and Preference in a Computational Model of Argument.Floris Bex & Chris Reed - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Toulmin Diagrams in Theory & Practice: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation.Chris Reed & Glenn Rowe - unknown
    The Toulmin diagram layout is very familiar and widely used, particularly in the teaching of critical thinking skills. The conventional box-and-arrow diagram is equally familiar and widespread. Translation between the two throws up a number of interesting challenges. Some of these challenges represent slightly different ways of looking at old and deep theoretical questions. Others are diagrammatic versions of questions that have already been addressed in artificial intelligence models of argument. But there are further questions that are posed as a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Narration in Judiciary Fact-Finding: A Probabilistic Explication.Rafal Urbaniak - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (4):345-376.
    Legal probabilism is the view that juridical fact-finding should be modeled using Bayesian methods. One of the alternatives to it is the narration view, according to which instead we should conceptualize the process in terms of competing narrations of what happened. The goal of this paper is to develop a reconciliatory account, on which the narration view is construed from the Bayesian perspective within the framework of formal Bayesian epistemology.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Plausible Argumentation in Eikotic Arguments: The Ancient Weak Versus Strong Man Example.Douglas Walton - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (1):45-74.
    In this paper it is shown how plausible reasoning of the kind illustrated in the ancient Greek example of the weak and strong man can be analyzed and evaluated using a procedure in which the pro evidence is weighed against the con evidence using formal, computational argumentation tools. It is shown by means of this famous example how plausible reasoning is based on an audience’s recognition of situations of a type they are familiar with as normal and comprehensible in their (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Comparing Alternatives in the Law.Jaap Hage - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (3):181-225.
    This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (QCR), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in AI and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with QCR, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (RBL). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence.Christian Dahlman - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):83-99.
    Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
    In this paper, it is argued that the most fruitful approach to developing normative models of argument quality is one that combines the argumentation scheme approach with Bayesian argumentation. Three sample argumentation schemes from the literature are discussed: the argument from sign, the argument from expert opinion, and the appeal to popular opinion. Limitations of the scheme-based treatment of these argument forms are identified and it is shown how a Bayesian perspective may help to overcome these. At the same time, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • An Object Model for Use in Oral and Written Advocacy.Charles Unwin - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):389-402.
    This paper describes the author’s development and use of a diagramming model in preparing a legal case for which he was responsible. He combined Wigmorean analysis and object oriented techniques in order to model arguments based on generalisations taken from the real world and from legal precedent. The paper addresses the modelling issues, but in particular identifies the very real benefits that affected the way the case was conducted. Those areas in which the model came into its own were principally (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Presumptions in Legal Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Ratio Juris 18 (4):434-463.
    . A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at , helps a user display an argument on the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence.Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation.Chris Reed & Glenn Rowe - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):267-286.
    The Toulmin diagram layout is very familiar and widely used, particularly in the teaching of critical thinking skills. The conventional box-and-arrow diagram is equally familiar and widespread. Translation between the two throws up a number of interesting challenges. Some of these challenges represent slightly different ways of looking at old and deep theoretical questions. Others are diagrammatic versions of questions that have already been addressed in artificial intelligence models of argument. But there are further questions that are posed as a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Reconstructing Popov V. Hayashi in a Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments and Dungean Semantics.Henry Prakken - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
    In this article the argumentation structure of the court’s decision in the Popov v. Hayashi case is formalised in Prakken’s (Argument Comput 1:93–124; 2010) abstract framework for argument-based inference with structured arguments. In this framework, arguments are inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules, strict and defeasible rules. Arguments can be attacked in three ways: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such conflicts, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations