Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300 (2012)
In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices that may be useful in cases in which there is insufficient evidence to prove the claim to an appropriate standard of proof
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - State University of New York Press.
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Chaïm Perelman - 1969 - Notre Dame, [Ind.]University of Notre Dame Press.
The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge.Nicholas Rescher - 1977 - State University of New York Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):233-265.
Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David Godden & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
The Carneades Argumentation Framework: Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions.Douglas Walton with Chris Reed - manuscript
Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.Fred J. Kauffeld - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):245-266.
Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law.Douglas N. Walton - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning.Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.
Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
On Nonmonotonic Reasoning with the Method of Sweeping Presumptions.Steven O. Kimbrough & Hua Hua - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):393-416.
A Dialogical Theory of Presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation.Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken - 2012 - Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
Added to index2012-08-04
Total downloads45 ( #114,807 of 2,163,685 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,043 of 2,163,685 )
How can I increase my downloads?