Switch to: References

Citations of:

Legal Argumentation and Evidence

Pennsylvania State University Press (2002)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum .F. Macagno & D. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 28 (3):203-228.
    Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (1):34-61.
    We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a problem. We examine a variety of arguments of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Dichotomies and oppositions in legal argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Ratio Juris 23 (2):229-257.
    In this paper we use a series of examples to show how oppositions and dichotomies are fundamental in legal argumentation, and vitally important to be aware of, because of their twofold nature. On the one hand, they are argument structures underlying various kinds of rational argumentation commonly used in law as a means of getting to the truth in a conflict of opinion under critical discussion by two opposing sides before a tryer of fact. On the other hand, they are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 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  
  • (1 other version)Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Análisis del movimiento antivacunas en Twitter: una perspectiva latinoamericana.Valeria Carolina Edelsztein & Claudio Cormick - 2023 - Journal of Science Communication (Jcom)-América Latina 6 (2).
    En este artículo realizamos un relevamiento exhaustivo de las publicaciones de Médicos por la Verdad, uno de los principales grupos antivacunas de Latinoamérica, en la red social Twitter durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Clasificamos sus tipos de razonamiento y el contenido de sus mensajes y mostramos que las propuestas existentes de análisis de discursos anticientíficos no pueden aplicarse a este caso particular. Proponemos, en consecuencia, una nueva categorización y su aplicación focalizada en las herramientas disponibles para comunicadores de la ciencia, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Causal models versus reason models in Bayesian networks for legal evidence.Eivind Kolflaath & Christian Dahlman - 2022 - Synthese 200 (6).
    In this paper we compare causal models with reason models in the construction of Bayesian networks for legal evidence. In causal models, arrows in the network are drawn from causes to effects. In a reason model, the arrows are instead drawn towards the evidence, from factum probandum to factum probans. We explore the differences between causal models and reason models and observe several distinct advantages with reason models. Reason models are better aligned with the philosophy of Bayesian inference, as they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Introduction to the Special Issue.Fabrizio Macagno & Alice Toniolo - 2022 - Informal Logic 43 (3):1-23.
    Douglas Walton’s work is extremely vast, multifaceted, and interdisciplinary. He developed theoretical proposals that have been used in disciplines that are not traditionally related to philosophy, such as law, education, discourse analysis, artificial intelligence, or medical communication. Through his papers and books, Walton redefined the boundaries not only of argumentation theory, but also logic and philosophy. He was a philosopher in the sense that his interest was developing theoretical models that can help explain reality, and more importantly interact with it. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Journal of Pragmatics 191:67-82.
    The detection of hate speech and fake news in political discourse is at the same time a crucial necessity for democratic societies and a challenge for several areas of study. However, most of the studies have focused on what is explicitly stated: false article information, language that expresses hatred, derogatory expressions. This paper argues that the explicit dimension of manipulation is only one – and the least problematic – of the risks of political discourse. The language of the unsaid is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Implicatures as Forms of Argument.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2013 - In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Cham: Springer. pp. 203-224.
    In this paper, we use concepts, structure and tools from argumentation theory to show how conversational implicatures are triggered by conflicts of presumptions. Presumptive implicatures are shown to be based on defeasible forms of inference used in conditions of lack of knowledge, including analogical reasoning, inference to the best explanation, practical reasoning, appeal to pity, and argument from cause. Such inferences are modelled as communicative strategies to knowledge gaps that shift the burden of providing the missing contrary evidence to the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2017 - International Journal of Legal Discourse 1 (21):47–83.
    In this paper it is shown how certain defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the most common types of argument used for statutory interpretation both in civil and common law. The method is based on an argumentation structure in which the conclusion, namely, the meaning attributed to a legal source, is modeled as a claim that needs that is be supported by pro and con defeasible arguments. The defeasible nature of each scheme is shown (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.Douglas Walton David M. Godden - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    . While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Proof, Explanation, and Justification in Mathematical Practice.Moti Mizrahi - 2020 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 51 (4):551-568.
    In this paper, I propose that applying the methods of data science to “the problem of whether mathematical explanations occur within mathematics itself” (Mancosu 2018) might be a fruitful way to shed new light on the problem. By carefully selecting indicator words for explanation and justification, and then systematically searching for these indicators in databases of scholarly works in mathematics, we can get an idea of how mathematicians use these terms in mathematical practice and with what frequency. The results of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Assessing relevance.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Lingua 210:42-64.
    This paper advances an approach to relevance grounded on patterns of material inference called argumentation schemes, which can account for the reconstruction and the evaluation of relevance relations. In order to account for relevance in different types of dialogical contexts, pursuing also non-cognitive goals, and measuring the scalar strength of relevance, communicative acts are conceived as dialogue moves, whose coherence with the previous ones or the context is represented as the conclusion of steps of material inferences. Such inferences are described (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Walton’s Argumentation Schemes.Lumer Christoph - unknown
    The contribution critically discusses Walton's argumentation scheme approach. On the one hand, its enormous richness and closeness to the empirical argumentation material is appreciated, but, on the other, fundamental conceptual weaknesses are revealed. Although the approach more recently has been declared to strive for “true beliefs and correct choices” it has not systematically developed the proposed schemes in a way that these goals are reached. Accordingly, many proposed schemes are fallacious from an epistemological standpoint.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Introducción. La epistemología y el derecho.Andrés Páez - 2015 - In Andrés Páez (ed.), Hechos, evidencia y estándares de prueba. Ensayos de epistemología jurídica. Bogotá, D.C., Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes. pp. 1-12.
    Aunque el derecho probatorio y el derecho procesal se han dedicado desde siempre al estudio de los problemas relacionados con las pruebas y el establecimiento de los hechos en los procesos judiciales, el énfasis ha estado siempre en el aspecto formal, doctrinal y procedimental en detrimento de los fundamentos filosóficos y teóricos. Durante los últimos años ha habido un intento sostenido de explorar estos fundamentos combinando no sólo las herramientas tradicionales proporcionadas por la lógica, la gramática y la retórica, sino (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
    This volume presents a selection of papers reflecting key theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Its six sections are devoted to specific themes, including the analysis and evaluation of argumentation, argument schemes and the contextual embedding of argumentation. The section on general perspectives on argumentation discusses the trends of empiricalization, contextualization and formalization, offers descriptions of the analytical and evaluative tools of informal logic, and highlights selected principles that argumentation theorists do and do not agree upon. In turn, the section on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Implicatures and hierarchies of presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Frank Zenker (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (University of Windsor, ON 18-21 May 2011). OSSA. pp. 1-17.
    Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning.Fabrizio Macagno & Benedetta Zavatta - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):453-488.
    Metaphorical meaning can be analyzed as triggered by an apparent communicative breach, an incongruity that leads to a default of the presumptive interpretation of a vehicle. This breach can be solved through contextual renegotiations of meaning guided by the communicative intention, or rather the presumed purpose of the metaphorical utterance. This paper addresses the problem of analyzing the complex process of reasoning underlying the reconstruction of metaphorical meaning. This process will be described as a type of abductive argument, aimed at (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Futher reflections on semantic minimalism: Reply to Wedgwood.Alessandro Capone - 2013 - In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Cham: Springer. pp. 437-474..
    semantic minimalism and moderte contextualism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Strategies of Character Attack.Fabrizio Macagno - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (4):1-33.
    Why are personal attacks so powerful? In political debates, speeches, discussions and campaigns, negative character judgments, aggressive charges and charged epithets are used for different purposes. They can block the dialogue, trigger value judgments and influence decisions; they can force the interlocutor to withdraw a viewpoint or undermine his arguments. Personal attacks are not only multifaceted dialogical moves, but also complex argumentative strategies. They can be considered as premises for further arguments based on signs, generalizations or consequences. They involve tactics (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi.Adam Wyner & Rinke Hoekstra - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):83-107.
    The paper provides an OWL ontology for legal cases with an instantiation of the legal case Popov v. Hayashi. The ontology makes explicit the conceptual knowledge of the legal case domain, supports reasoning about the domain, and can be used to annotate the text of cases, which in turn can be used to populate the ontology. A populated ontology is a case base which can be used for information retrieval, information extraction, and case based reasoning. The ontology contains not only (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness.Imran Aijaz, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):259-282.
    How is the burden of proof to be distributed among individuals who are involved in resolving a particular issue? Under what conditions should the burden of proof be distributed unevenly? We distinguish attitudinal from dialectical burdens and argue that these questions should be answered differently, depending on which is in play. One has an attitudinal burden with respect to some proposition when one is required to possess sufficient evidence for it. One has a dialectical burden with respect to some proposition (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions.Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):233-265.
    This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • 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.
    In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • An Automated System for Argument Invention in Law Using Argumentation and Heuristic Search Procedures.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Ratio Juris 18 (4):434-463.
    . A heuristic search procedure for inventing legal arguments is built on two tools already widely in use in argumentation. Argumentation schemes are forms of argument representing premise‐conclusion and inference structures of common types of arguments. Schemes especially useful in law represent defeasible arguments, like argument from expert opinion. Argument diagramming is a visualization tool used to display a chain of connected arguments linked together. One such tool, Araucaria, available free at , helps a user display an argument on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Teaching a process model of legal argument with hypotheticals.Kevin D. Ashley - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370.
    The research described here explores the idea of using Supreme Court oral arguments as pedagogical examples in first year classes to help students learn the role of hypothetical reasoning in law. The article presents examples of patterns of reasoning with hypotheticals in appellate legal argument and in the legal classroom and a process model of hypothetical reasoning that relates them to work in cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence. The process model describes the relationships between an advocate’s proposed test for deciding (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice.Sally Jackson - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):243-263.
    This essay proposes a design perspective on argumentation, intended as complementary to empirical and critical scholarship. In any substantive domain, design can provide insights that differ from those provided by scientific or humanistic perspectives. For argumentation, the key advantage of a design perspective is the recognition that humanity’s natural capacity for reason and reasonableness can be extended through inventions that improve on unaided human intellect. Historically, these inventions have fallen into three broad classes: logical systems, scientific methods, and disputation frameworks. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Book Reviews: Klatt, Matthias, Theorie der Wortlautgrenze, Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie und Rechtstheorie 38, Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2004, 313 pp. Forthcoming in English (Oxford, Hart Publishing) 2006. [REVIEW]Sieckmann Jan-R. - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):509-513.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentative reasoning patterns.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2006 - In Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno (eds.), Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI-European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. University of Trento. pp. 48-51.
    The aim of the paper is to present a typology of argument schemes. In first place, we found it helpful to define what an argument scheme is. Since many argument schemes found in contemporary theories stem from the ancient tradition, we took in consideration classical and medieval dialectical studies and their relation with argumentation theory. This overview on the main works on topics and schemes provides a summary of the main principles of classification. In the second section, Walton’s theory is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 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  
  • Encuentros cercanos con argumentos del "tercer tipo": razonamiento plausible y probabilidad subjetiva como modelos de evaluación de argumentos.Christian Gaviria & William Jiménez-Leal - 2014 - Critica 46 (137):85-112.
    Este artículo presenta un análisis comparativo de los modelos de argumentación basados en las nociones de probabilidad subjetiva y de razonamiento plausible. Se hacen explícitos los “parecidos de familia” entre probabilidad y plausibilidad, y se examinan las diferencias en las prescripciones invocadas para la evaluación de tres tipos de falacias informales: apelación a la autoridad, a la popularidad y petición de principio. Se concluye que el razonamiento plausible, como Rescher y Walton lo describen, no proporciona una alternativa sólida a la (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair.John Anthony Blair - 2011 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    J. Anthony Blair is a prominent international figure in argumentation studies. He is among the originators of informal logic, an author of textbooks on the informal logic approach to argument analysis and evaluation and on critical thinking, and a founder and editor of the journal Informal Logic. Blair is widely recognized among the leaders in the field for contributing formative ideas to the argumentation literature of the last few decades. This selection of key works provides insights into the history of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • The Role of Evidence in Chronic Care Decision-Making.Fabrizio Macagno & Sarah Bigi - 2020 - Topoi 40 (2):343-358.
    In the domain of medical science, factual evidence is usually considered as the criterion on which to base decisions and construct hypotheses. Evidence-based medicine is the translation of this approach into the field of patient care, and it means providing only the type of care that is based on evidence that proves its effectiveness and appropriateness. However, while the literature has focused on the types and force of evidence used to establish the recommendation and treatment guidelines, the problem of how (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Pragmatics and Cognition 24 (2):263-296.
    The detection and analysis of misunderstandings are crucial aspects of discourse analysis, and presuppose a twofold investigation of their structure. First, misunderstandings need to be identified and, more importantly, justified. For this reason, a classification of the types and force of evidence of a misunderstanding is needed. Second, misunderstandings reveal differences in the interlocutors’ interpretations of an utterance, which can be examined by considering the presumptions that they use in their interpretation. This paper proposes a functional approach to misunderstandings grounded (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 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  
  • Defaults and inferences in interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno - 2017 - Journal of Pragmatics 117:280-290.
    The notions of inference and default are used in pragmatics with different meanings, resulting in theoretical disputes that emphasize the differences between the various pragmatic approaches. This paper is aimed at showing how the terminological and theoretical differences concerning the two aforementioned terms result from taking into account inference and default from different points of view and levels of analysis. Such differences risk making a dialogue between the theories extremely difficult. However, at a functional level of analysis the different theories, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions.Douglas Walton - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (2):159-186.
    Using persuasive definitions and persuasive language generally to put a spin on an argument has often held to be suspicious, if not deceptive or even fallacious. However, if the purpose of a persuasive definition is to persuade, and if rational persuasion can be a legitimate goal, putting forward a persuasive definition can have a legitimate basis in some cases. To clarify this basis, the old subject of definitions is reconfigured into a new dialectical framework in which, it is argued, a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Experts and Bias: When is the Interest-Based Objection to Expert Argumentation Sound? [REVIEW]Frank Zenker - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):355-370.
    I discuss under what conditions the objection that an expert’s argument is biased by her self-interest can be a meaningful and sound argumentative move. I suggest replacing the idea of bias qua self-interest by that of a conflict of interests, exploit the distinction between an expert context and a public context, and hold that the objection can be meaningful. Yet, the evaluation is overall negative, because the motivational role of self-interest for human behavior remains unclear. Moreover, if recent social-psychological results (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence.Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Evidence, Persuasion and Diversity.Derek Allen - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (2):237-254.
    My topic is the theme of the E-OSSA 12 conference, namely Evidence, Persuasion and Diversity. I will present relevant material from a selection of Canadian legal cases, along with background information as needed and commentary. My primary focus will be on two landmark Supreme Court of Canada cases—an Aboriginal law case and a case that was both a constitutional law case and a criminal law case.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions.David Godden & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Polish logical studies from an informal logic perspective.Marcin Koszowy - unknown
    The paper emphasizes significant resemblances between the Informal Logic Initiative and the Lvov-Warsaw School – the Polish philosophical movement, the rise of which is associated with “the Golden Age of Science and Letters”. The correspondence between informal logic and the logical studies of the LWS will be explored by discussing their subject-matter, goals, and methods. The project focused on applying logical studies of the LWS in analyzing and assessing arguments will be proposed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Poisoning the Well.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (3):273-307.
    In this paper it is shown is that although poisoning the well has generally been treated as a species of ad hominem fallacy, when you try to analyze the fallacy using ad hominem schemes, even by supplementing with related schemes like argument from position to know, the analysis ultimately fails. The main argument of the paper is taken up with proving this negative claim by applying these schemes to examples of arguments associated with the fallacy of poisoning the well. Although (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Cognitive Semiotics in Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration.Paul Van den Hoven - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (2):157-176.
    Argumentation is a cognitive category. Texts cannot be said to be argumentation, nor can argumentation be said to lie in texts. This is an almost trivial semiotic point of departure, but it is quite relevant nevertheless. In this contribution, three reasons are developed to emphasize and to articulate the semiotic component of argumentation to show that it is a crucial element that cannot be disregarded. Two of these reasons are mentioned only in passing as other contributions in this volume deal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Decision support systems for police: Lessons from the application of data mining techniques to “soft” forensic evidence. [REVIEW]Giles Oatley, Brian Ewart & John Zeleznikow - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (1-2):35-100.
    The paper sets out the challenges facing the Police in respect of the detection and prevention of the volume crime of burglary. A discussion of data mining and decision support technologies that have the potential to address these issues is undertaken and illustrated with reference the authors’ work with three Police Services. The focus is upon the use of “soft” forensic evidence which refers to modus operandi and the temporal and geographical features of the crime, rather than “hard” evidence such (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Book Review: Walton, Douglas (2002), Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University Press. ISBN 0271021772, 374 pp. [REVIEW]Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):513-518.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Legal Arguments about Plausible Facts and Their Strategic Presentation.Henrike Jansen - unknown
    Arguments from plausibility, in which an appeal is made to customary behavior, are often used in the legal practice. For example: Joran van derSloot must have murdered Natalee Holloway, otherwise he would have called an ambulance when she looked dead. As in the example, such arguments are often presented with an explicit appeal to an inference license that gives the argument amodus tollensstructure [if he had not murdered her...]. I will address the question what motivates such a presentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations