14 found
Order:
  1.  45
    The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
    We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the procedural and dialogical aspects of argumentation. The model applies proof standards to determine the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. The model uses different types of premises (ordinary premises, assumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (stated, questioned, accepted or rejected) to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate, for each premise separately. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   76 citations  
  2.  55
    The Pleadings Game.Thomas F. Gordon - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (4):239-292.
    The Pleadings Game is a normative formalization and computational model of civil pleading, founded in Roberty Alexy''s discourse theory of legal argumentation. The consequences of arguments and counterarguments are modelled using Geffner and Pearl''s nonmonotonic logic,conditional entailment. Discourse in focussed using the concepts of issue and relevance. Conflicts between arguments can be resolved by arguing about the validity and priority of rules, at any level. The computational model is fully implemented and has been tested using examples from Article Nine of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  3.  27
    How Computational Tools Can Help Rhetoric and Informal Logic with Argument Invention.Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (2):269-295.
    This paper compares the features and methods of the two leading implemented systems that offer a tool for helping a user to find or invent arguments to support or attack a designated conclusion, the Carneades Argumentation System and the IBM Watson Debater tool. The central aim is to contribute to the understanding of scholars in informal logic, rhetoric and argumentation on how these two software systems can be useful for them. One contribution of the paper is to explain to these (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  33
    Formalizing Informal Logic.Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (4):508-538.
    This paper presents a formalization of informal logic using the Carneades Argumentation System, a formal, computational model of argument that consists of a formal model of argument graphs and audiences. Conflicts between pro and con arguments are resolved using proof standards, such as preponderance of the evidence. CAS also formalizes argumentation schemes. Schemes can be used to check whether a given argument instantiates the types of argument deemed normatively appropriate for the type of dialogue.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  5.  14
    Representing Argumentation Schemes with Constraint Handling Rules.Thomas F. Gordon, Horst Friedrich & Douglas Walton - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (2):91-119.
    We present a high-level declarative programming language for representing argumentation schemes, where schemes represented in this language can be easily validated by domain experts, including developers of argumentation schemes in informal logic and philosophy, and serve as executable specifications for automatically constructing arguments, when applied to a set of assumptions. This new rule language for representing argumentation schemes is validated by using it to represent twenty representative argumentation schemes.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  6.  91
    A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  7.  9
    In Memoriam Douglas N. Walton: The Influence of Doug Walton on AI and Law.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (3):281-326.
    Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  8.  38
    Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning.Douglas Walton, Christopher W. Tindale & Thomas F. Gordon - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):85-119.
    Plausible (eikotic) reasoning known from ancient Greek (late Academic) skeptical philosophy is shown to be a clear notion that can be analyzed by argumentation methods, and that is important for argumentation studies. It is shown how there is a continuous thread running from the Sophists to the skeptical philosopher Carneades, through remarks of Locke and Bentham on the subject, to recent research in artificial intelligence. Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9.  52
    A Carneades Reconstruction of Popov V Hayashi.Thomas F. Gordon & Douglas Walton - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):37-56.
    Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  10.  53
    The Carneades Model of Argument Invention.Douglas N. Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2012 - Radical Philosophy Review of Books 20 (1):1-31.
    Argument invention is a method that can be used to help an arguer find arguments that could be used to prove a claim he needs to defend. The aim of this paper is to show how argumentation systems recently developed in artificial intelligence can be applied to the task of argument invention. One such system called Carneades is featured. Carneades can be used to analyze arguments, evaluate arguments, to make an argument diagram, and to construct arguments from a database. Using (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  11.  11
    The Carneades Model of Argument Invention.Douglas N. Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2012 - Pragmatics and Cognition 20 (1):1-31.
    Argument invention is a method that can be used to help an arguer find arguments that could be used to prove a claim he needs to defend. The aim of this paper is to show how argumentation systems recently developed in artificial intelligence can be applied to the task of argument invention. One such system called Carneades is featured. Carneades can be used to analyze arguments, evaluate arguments, to make an argument diagram, and to construct arguments from a database. Using (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  12.  13
    How to Formalize Informal Logic.Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - unknown
    This paper presents a formalization of informal logic using the Carneades Argumentation System, a formal, computational model of argument that consists of a formal model of argument graphs and audiences. Conflicts between pro and con arguments are resolved using proof standards, such as preponderance of the evidence. Carneades also formalizes argumentation schemes. Schemes can be used to check whether a given argument instantiates the types of argument deemed normatively appropriate for the type of dialogue.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  13.  92
    Jumping to a Conclusion: Fallacies and Standards of Proof.Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (2):215-243.
    Five errors that fit under the category of jumping to a conclusion are identified: (1) arguing from premises that are insufficient as evidence to prove a conclusion (2) fallacious argument from ignorance, (3) arguing to a wrong conclusion, (4) using defeasible reasoning without being open to exceptions, and (5) overlooking/suppressing evidence. It is shown that jumping to a conclusion is best seen not as a fallacy itself, but as a more general category of faulty argumentation pattern underlying these errors and (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  14.  14
    Modeling Critical Questions as Additional Premises.Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon & Scott F. Aikin - unknown
    This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations