AI & Law, logic and argument schemes
Argumentation 19 (3):303-320 (2005)
Abstract
This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that the various elements of an argument can play. This approach is then applied to legal reasoning, to identify some of the main legal argument schemes. It is also argued that much AI & Law research in fact employs the argument-scheme approach, although it usually is not presented as such. Finally, it is argued that the argument-scheme approach and the way it has been employed in AI & Law respects some of the main lessons to be learnt from Toulmin’s The Uses of ArgumentDOI
10.1007/s10503-005-4418-7
My notes
Similar books and articles
Argument Schemes in Computer System Safety Engineering.Tangming Yuan & Tim Kelly - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (2):89-109.
Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. [REVIEW]J. Anthony Blair - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Argument Schemes from the Point of View of Hamblin’s Dialectic.Jan A. van Laar - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):344-366.
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law.Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument.D. N. Walton - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
Argumentation schemes and communities of argumentational practice.Andrew Aberdein - 2009 - In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. OSSA.
Axiom schemes for m-valued functional calculi of first order: Part I. definition of axiom schemes and proof of plausibility.J. B. Rosser & A. R. Turquette - 1948 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 13 (4):177-192.
Political Resistance: A Matter of Fairness.Candice Delmas - 2014 - Law and Philosophy 33 (4):465-488.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-10-30
Downloads
314 (#37,913)
6 months
2 (#298,443)
2013-10-30
Downloads
314 (#37,913)
6 months
2 (#298,443)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.Shiyang Yu & Frank Zenker - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (4):469-498.
Data-centric and logic-based models for automated legal problem solving.L. Karl Branting - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):5-27.
Argumentation and the problem of agreement.John Casey & Scott F. Aikin - 2022 - Synthese 200 (2):1-23.
References found in this work
The Uses of Argument.Stephen Edelston Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.