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

, , &
Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1023/b:arti.0000046007.11806.9a

Other Versions

original Floris, Bex; Henry, Prakken; Chris, Reed; Douglas, Walton (2003) "Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations". Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2-3):125-165

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,035

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Chris and Douglas Walton,'towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations'.Bex Floris & Henry Prakken - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:125-165.
A dialogical theory of presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Robert Alexy - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. [REVIEW]Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
Defeasibility in Law.Giovanni Sartor - 2011 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag. pp. 315-364.
Did he jump or was he pushed?: Abductive practical reasoning.Katie Atkinson - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
Abstract argumentation.Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
158 (#143,724)

6 months
8 (#517,047)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Douglas Walton
Last affiliation: University of Windsor

Citations of this work

Argumentation schemes in AI and Law.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):417-434.

View all 63 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.

View all 17 references / Add more references