Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations [Book Review]

Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165 (2003)

Authors
Douglas Walton
University of Windsor
Abstract
This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,049
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.
Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority.Douglas Walton - 1997 - Pennsylvania State University Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Narration in Judiciary Fact-Finding: A Probabilistic Explication.Rafal Urbaniak - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (4):345-376.
AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes.Henry Prakken - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.

View all 37 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
84 ( #95,216 of 2,260,782 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #254,911 of 2,260,782 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature