Abstract
This article begins with an introduction to defeasible (nonmonotonic) reasoning and a brief description of a computer program, EVID, which can perform such reasoning. I then explain, and illustrate with examples, how this program can be applied in computational representations of ordinary dialogic argumentation. The program represents the beliefs and doubts of the dialoguers, and uses these propositional attitudes, which can include commonsense defeasible inference rules, to infer various changing conclusions as a dialogue progresses. It is proposed that computational representations of this kind are a useful tool in the analysis of dialogic argumentation, and, in particular, demonstrate the important role of defeasible reasoning in everyday arguments using commonsense reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Causey, R. L.: 1987, ‘Simulations and Experiments in Philosophy of Science’, Perspectives in Computing 7, IBM, Armonk, NY, 23–33.
Causey, R. L.: 1991, ‘The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning’, Minds and Machines 1, 437–458.
Causey, R. L.: 1994, ‘EVID: A System for Interactive Defeasible Reasoning’, Decision Support Systems 11, 103–131.
Chisholm, R. M.: 1964, ‘The Ethics of Requirement’, American Philosophical Quarterly 1, 147–153
Eemeren, F. H. van et al.: 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Feteris, E. T.: 1997, ‘A Survey of 25 Years of Research on Legal Argumentation’, Argumentation 11, 355–376.
Ginsberg, M. L. (ed.): 1987, Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.
Ross, W. D.: 1930: The Right and the Good, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.: 1994, ‘Complex Argumentation in a Critical Discussion’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics 4, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 69–78. [Note: The three arguments discussed in the present article are also stated in Snoeck Henkemans, ‘A Dialogical Approach to Complex Argumentation’, in this issue of Argumentation. However, all references to her work that are in the present article are references to the 1994 publication.]
Sterling, L. and E. Shapiro: 1994, The Art of Prolog, 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tillers, P. and E. D. Green (eds.): 1988, Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 109), Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Tribe, L. H.: 1971, ‘Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process’, Harvard Law Review 84, 1329–1393.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Causey, R.L. Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17, 421–450 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026342520498
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026342520498