Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View.Frans H. van Eemeren & Ton van Haaften - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (3):341-376.
    In ‘The making of argumentation theory’ van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness – the crucial issue in argumentation theory – van Eemeren and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Constructivist Facts as the Bridge Between Is and Ought.Jaap Hage - 2022 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 36 (1):53-81.
    This article describes how the facts in social reality take an intermediate position between objective facts and purely subjective ‘facts’. In turn, these social facts can be subdivided into constructivist and non-constructivist facts. The defining difference is that non-constructivist facts are completely determined by an approximate consensus between the members of a social group, while constructivist facts are founded in such a consensus but can nevertheless be questioned. Ought fact are such constructivist facts. Because they are founded in social reality, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
    Use of argumentation methods applied to legal reasoning is a relatively new field of study. The book provides a survey of the leading problems, and outlines how future research using argumentation-based methods show great promise of leading to useful solutions. The problems studied include not only these of argument evaluation and argument invention, but also analysis of specific kinds of evidence commonly used in law, like witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence and character evidence. New tools for analyzing these kinds (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Explanation in AI and law: Past, present and future.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Danushka Bollegala - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence 289 (C):103387.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • (1 other version)Evidential Reasoning.Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2011 - In G. Bongiovanni, Don Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, C. Valentini & D. Walton (eds.), Handbook in Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. pp. 447-493.
    The primary aim of this chapter is to explain the nature of evidential reasoning, the characteristic difficulties encountered, and the tools to address these difficulties. Our focus is on evidential reasoning in criminal cases. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these topics, and it is a secondary aim of the chapter to provide readers the means to find their way in historical and ongoing debates.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
    In this paper we will analyse the issue of defeasibility in the law, taking into account research carried out in philosophy, artificial intelligence and legal theory. We will adopt a very general idea of legal defeasibility, in which we will include all different ways in which certain legal conclusions may need to be abandoned, though no mistake was made in deriving them. We will argue that defeasibility in the law involves three different aspects, which we will call inference‐based defeasibility, process‐based (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.Bart Verheij - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):347-371.
    Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments (1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • A model of juridical acts: part 1: the world of law. [REVIEW]Jaap Hage - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1):23-48.
    This paper aims at providing an account of juridical acts that forms a suitable starting point for the creation of computational systems that deal with juridical acts. The paper is divided into two parts. Because juridical acts will be analyzed as intentional changes in the world of law, the ‘furniture’ of this world, that consists broadly speaking of entities, facts and rules, plays a central role in the analysis. This first part of the paper deals with this furniture and its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A formal model of adjudication dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
    This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator’s role in legal procedures. The main feature of the model is a division into an argumentation phase, where the adversaries plea their case and the adjudicator has a largely mediating role, and a decision phase, where the adjudicator decides the dispute on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Defeasible reasoning.Robert C. Koons - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  • Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.David Hitchcock & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2006 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    In The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin proposed a model for the layout of arguments: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Since then, Toulmin’s model has been appropriated, adapted and extended by researchers in speech communications, philosophy and artificial intelligence. This book assembles the best contemporary reflection in these fields, extending or challenging Toulmin’s ideas in ways that make fresh contributions to the theory of analysing and evaluating arguments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Is there a burden of questioning?Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
    In some recent cases in Anglo-American law juries ruled contrary to an expert's testimony even though that testimony was never challenged, contradicted or questioned in the trial. These cases are shown to raise some theoretical questions about formal dialogue systems in computational dialectical systems for legal argumentation of the kind recently surveyed by Bench-Capon (1997) and Hage (2000) in this journal. In such systems, there is a burden of proof, meaning that if the respondent questions an argument, the proponent is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade. [REVIEW]Guido Governatori, Trevor Bench-Capon, Bart Verheij, Michał Araszkiewicz, Enrico Francesconi & Matthias Grabmair - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (4):481-519.
    The first issue of _Artificial Intelligence and Law_ journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on landmark papers from the first decade of that journal. The topics discussed include reasoning with cases, argumentation, normative reasoning, dialogue, representing legal knowledge and neural networks.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation.Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):291-324.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations