Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computational dialectic and rhetorical invention

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 11 June 2010

Abstract

This paper has three dimensions, historical, theoretical and social. The historical dimension is to show how the Ciceronian system of dialectical argumentation served as a precursor to computational models of argumentation schemes such as Araucaria and Carneades. The theoretical dimension is to show concretely how these argumentation schemes reveal the interdependency of rhetoric and logic, and so the interdependency of the normative with the empirical. It does this by identifying points of disagreement in a dialectical format through using argumentation schemes and critical questions. The social dimension is to show how the Ciceronian dialectical viewpoint integrates with the use of computational tools that can be used to support the principle of reason-based deliberation and facilitate deliberative democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To see how expert opinion testimony is used as a form of argumentation in law, see (Walton 1997) and (Verheij 2003).

  2. Statement of the Intelligent System Group for Computational Dialectics, accessed Nov. 30, 2009 at: http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/cd.html.

  3. See (Gordon 1995, xi) for the published version.

References

  • Aristotle (1928) On Sophistical Refutations (trans. E. S. Forster). Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1937) The Art of Rhetoric (trans. John Henry Freese). Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1939) Topics (trans. E. S. Forster). Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synth 152:157–206

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barth EM, Krabbe ECW (1982) From Axiom to Dialogue. De Gruyter, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (2008) ‘Preface’, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Amsterdam: IOS Press, p 5

  • Cicero MT (1949) De Inventione. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dascal M, Gross AG (1999) The marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric. Philos Rhetor 32:107–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell TB (1993) Norms of Rhetorical Culture. Yale University Press, New Haven

  • Gordon TF (1995) The pleadings game: an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF (1996) Computational dialectics. Computers as assistants—a new generation of support systems. Hoschka P (eds), Erlbaum, pp 186–203

  • Gordon TF, Richter G (2002) Discourse support systems for deliberative democracy. eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV). Traunmüller R, Lenk K (eds) Springer, Aix-en-Provence, pp 248–255

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades argumentation framework, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2010) A Carneades Reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Knowledge Engineering Review (to appear)

  • Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875–896

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson D, Harman G (eds) The logic of grammar. Dickenson, Encino, pp 64–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Groarke L (1990) Greek skepticism. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

  • Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin CL (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen H, Pinto R (1995) Fallacies. Penn State Press, University Park

  • Hintikka J (1979) Information-seeking dialogues: a model. Erkenntnis 38:355–368

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hohmann H (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic: some historical and legal perspectives. Argumentation 14:223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14:261–286

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy G (1963) The art of Persuasion in Greece. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kestler JL (1982) Questioning techniques and tactics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner M (1993) The empirical relevance of Perelman’s new rhetoric. Argumentation 7:419–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe ECW (2000) Meeting in the House of Callias: rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation 14:205–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leff M (1983) The topics of argumentative invention in latin rhetorical theory from Cicero to Beothius. Rhetorica 1:23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leff M (1993) The uses of Aristotle’s rhetoric in contemporary American Scholarship. Argumentation 7:313–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leff M (1996) Commonplaces and argumentation in Cicero and Quintilian. Argumentation 10:445–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leff M (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14:241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie J (1981) The dialectics of logic. Logique et Analyse 94:159–177

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsis, P (1999) Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp 143–144

  • Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4:331–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Norman TJ (2003) Argumentation machines: new frontiers in argument and computation. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Rowe G (2005) Araucaria, Version 3.1. Available free at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/

  • Rescher N (1977) Dialectics. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson R (1962) Plato’s earlier dialectic. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren B (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 5(1):43–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorsrud H (2002) Cicero on His Academic Predecessors: the Fallibilism of Arcesilaus and Carneades. J Hist Philos 40:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale CW (1999) Acts of arguing: a rhetorical model of argument. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P (2000) Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation 14:293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Henkemans S, Francisca et al. (1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Erlbaum, Mahwah

  • Verheij B (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:167–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1989) Question-reply argumentation. Greenwood Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds) Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103–111

  • Walton D, Krabbe EC (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Whately R (1863) Elements of rhetoric, 7th edn. Parker Son and Bourn, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), University of Windsor, 2500 University Ave. W., Windsor, ON, N9B 3Y1, USA

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0283-5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D. Computational dialectic and rhetorical invention. AI & Soc 26, 3–17 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0279-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0279-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation