Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 episode schemes, we can get a clearer idea of how it integrates with the use of argument from classification and argument from precedent in case-based reasoning by using a dialogue structure.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleven V (1997) Teaching case based argumentation through an example and models. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

  • Ashley K (1988) Arguing by analogy in law: a case-based model. In: Helman DH (ed) Analogical reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 205–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley K (2004) Capturing the dialectic between principles and cases. Jurimetrics 44:229–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley K (2006) Case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Oskamp A (eds) Information technology and lawyers. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley K (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological and hypothetical reasoning. In: Proceeding of ICAIL 2009: 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: association for computing machinery, pp 1–10

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In: Sartor G (ed) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–44

  • Bench-Capon TJM (2009) Dimension based representation of popov v hayashi. In: Atkinson K (ed) Modelling legal cases. Huygens editorial, Barcelona, pp 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM (2010) Representing popov v. hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law (to appear)

  • Bex F (2009a) Evidence for a good story: a hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. PhD thesis,University of Groningen

  • Bex F (2009b) Analysing stories using schemes. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, VerheijLegal B (eds) Evidence and proof: statistics stories, logic. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 93–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Bex F, Prakken H (2008) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–84

  • Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artif Intell Law 11:125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer S (1996) Exemplary reasoning: semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harv Law Rev 109:923–1038

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2006a) The carneades argumentation framework, computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2006b) Pierson v. Post revisited, Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 208–219

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gray BE (2002) Reported and recommendations on the law of capture and first possession: popov v. hayashi. Superior of the State of California for the city and county of San Francisco, case no. 400545, November 6, 2002. Available May 24, 2009 at: http://web.mac.com/graybe/Site/Writings_files/Hayashi%20Brief.pdf

  • Guarini M (2004) A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Log 24:153–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarini M, Butchart A, Simard Smith P, Moldovan A (2009) Resources for research on analogy: a multi-disciplinary guide. Informal Log 29(2):84–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1949) The ascription of responsibility and rights. In: Proceedings of the aristotelian society, vol 49, pp 171–194. Reprinted in logic and language, Flew A (ed) Blackwell, Oxford, 1951, pp 145–166

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Leake DB (1992) Evaluating explanations: a content theory. Erlbaum, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui RP (1995) Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism.In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, New York, pp 21–30. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=222099

  • Macagno F, Walton D (2009) Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philos Rhetor 42:154–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy KM (2002) Statement of decision. Superior court of California, December 12, 2002, Case of Popov v. Hayahsi #4005545: www.findlaw

  • McCarty LT, Sridharan NS (1982) A computational theory of legal argument. LRP-TR-13. Laboratory for computer science research. New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren BM (2003) Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: an AI model. Artif Intell J 150:145–181

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren BM (2006) Computational models of ethical reasoning: challenges, initial steps, and future directions.In: IEEE intelligent systems. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, July/August, pp 29–37

  • Patry W (2005/06) The patry copyright blog. Accessed 22 Jul 2010. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/06/striking-similarity-and-evidentiary.html

  • Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J Logic Comput 15:1009–1040

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schank RC (1986) Explanation patterns: understanding mechanically and creatively. Erlbaum, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer F (1987) Precedent. Stanford Law Rev 39(3):571–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer F (2009) Thinking like a lawyer. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson J (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1(1):47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IAAIL workshop series international workshop on argumentation in artificial intelligence and law. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Gordon TF (2009) Jumping to a conclusion: fallacies and standards of proof. Informal Log 29:215–243

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinreb LL (2005) Legal reason: the use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder A, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner A, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of popov v. hayashi. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp 151–160

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for a research grant that supported the work in this paper.

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, Canada

    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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artif Intell Law 18, 217–246 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9102-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9102-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation