Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, a solution to the problem of analyzing burden of proof in argumentation is developed by building on the pioneering work of Erik C. W. Krabbe on metadialogues. Three classic cases of burden of proof disputes are analyzed, showing how metadialogue theory can solve the problems they pose. The solution is based on five dialectical requirements: (1) global burden of proof needs to be set at the confrontation stage of a dialogue, (2) there need to be special mechanisms for resolving disputes about burden of proof at all four stages of the dialogue, (3) they are especially significant during the argumentation stage, where burden of proof often shifts back and forth at each move, (4) such local shifts need to be partly regulated by the global burden of proof already set, and (5) the connection between burden of proof and the speech act of making a presumption in a dialogue needs to be clarified.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bench-Capon T. 2003, Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewka G. 2001. Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 11, 257–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst 1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser 2002, Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof. In F. H. van Eemeren et al. (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro M. A. 1980, Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro M. A. 2005, Arguments about Arguments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice H. P. 1975, Logic and Conversation. In D. Davidson, G. Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Dickenson, Encino (CA), pp. 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe E. C. W. 1995, Appeal to Ignorance. In H. V. Hansen, R. C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 251–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe E. C. W. 1999, Profiles of Dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, Y. Venema (eds.), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe E. C. W. 2003, Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoek Henkemans (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, J. A.: 2003, The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation (Ph.D. dissertation), Groningen University.

  • Mackenzie J. D. 1979, How to Stop Talking to Tortoises. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20, 705–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie J. D. 1981, The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse 24, 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park R. C., D. P. Leonard, S. H. Goldberg 1998, Evidence Law. West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H. 2001, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure. Fundamenta Informaticae 48, 253–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., C. Reed and D. Walton: 2005, ‹Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 05), The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, pp. 115–124.

  • Strong J. W. (Ed.) 1992, McCormick on Evidence (4th ed., vol. 2), West Publishing Co., St Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. 1996, Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D., E. C. W. Krabbe 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, M., P. McBurney and S. Parsons: 2005, ‹On the Meta-Logic of Arguments’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, pp. 560–567.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada, R3B 2E9

    Douglas N. Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas N. Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas N. Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D.N. Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes. Argumentation 21, 291–316 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9056-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9056-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation