- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
The carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Abstract
with Thomas F. Gordon and Henry Prakken. Artificial Intelligence, forthcoming. [Preprint posted.].Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
Considering Carneades as a Framework for Informal Logic: A Reply to Walton and Gordon.Marcin Selinger & Marcin Koszowy - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):217-237.
Thomas F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game – An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. [REVIEW]Arno R. Lodder - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):255-264.
Thomas F. Gordon, the pleadings game – an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice.Arno R. Lodder - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):255-264.
Commentary on: Douglas Walton and Thomas F. Gordon's "How to formalize informal logic".Marcin Koszowy & Marcin Selinger - 2013 - Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013, Windsor:1-7.
Hendrik Kaptein, Henry Prakken and Bart verheij (eds): Review of legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic. [REVIEW]Douglas Walton - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):371-377.
Henry Prakken (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in law.Bart Verheij - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
A dialogical theory of presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Henry Prakken, logical tools for modelling legal argument: A study of defeasible reasoning in law. [REVIEW]L. M. M. Royakkers - 2000 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):379-387.
Douglas Walton, the new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of toronto press (book review). [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (4):305-313.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
28 (#556,414)
6 months
28 (#133,522)
2009-01-28
Downloads
28 (#556,414)
6 months
28 (#133,522)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments.Henry Prakken - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial.Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):31-62.
Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness.Imran Aijaz, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):259-282.
Denying antecedents and affirming consequents: The state of the art.David Godden & Frank Zenker - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (1):88-134.
Representing argumentation schemes with Constraint Handling Rules.Thomas F. Gordon, Horst Friedrich & Douglas Walton - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (2):91-119.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6686886f5-sqlzn uwo