Argumentation 25 (2):171-184 (2011)
A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of dialogical interaction, in which human or artificial agents aim to resolve a conflict of opinion by verbal means. Rules for conducting such dialogues and criteria for their quality are part of dialogue theory. Usually, formal accounts of argumentation dialogues in logic and artificial intelligence presuppose an argument-based logic. That is, the ways in which dialogue participants support and attack claims are modelled as the construction of explicit arguments and counterarguments (in the inferential sense). However, in this paper formal models of argumentation dialogues are discussed that do not presuppose arguments as inferential structures. The motivation for such models is that there are forms of inference that are not most naturally cast in the form of arguments (such as abduction, statistical reasoning and coherence-based reasoning) but that can still be the subject of argumentative dialogue. Some recent work in artificial intelligence is discussed which embeds non-argumentative inference in an argumentative dialogue system, and some general observations are drawn from this discussion.
|Keywords||Logic Dialogue Arguments Inferential structures Abduction Coherence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - State University of New York Press.
Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):25-75.
Citations of this work BETA
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.
Words and Images in Argumentation.Axel Arturo Barceló Aspeitia - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):355-368.
Similar books and articles
An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments.J. Katzav & C. A. Reed - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 1999 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
The Structure of Argumentation in Health Product Messages.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Argument and Computation 1 (3):179-198.
Algorithms and Arguments: The Foundational Role of the ATAI-Question.Paola Cantu' & Italo Testa - 2011 - In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192-203). Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory.Christof Rapp & Tim Wagner - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):7-30.
Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
Modelling Inference in Argumentation Through Labelled Deduction: Formalization and Logical Properties. [REVIEW]Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari - 2007 - Logica Universalis 1 (1):93-124.
What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education. [REVIEW]Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
Added to index2011-04-24
Total downloads39 ( #130,822 of 2,158,346 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #355,511 of 2,158,346 )
How can I increase my downloads?