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

Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165 (2003)
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
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,749
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes.Henry Prakken - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
66 ( #82,605 of 2,198,093 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #97,307 of 2,198,093 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature