Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   385 citations  
  • Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
    This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   242 citations  
  • (1 other version)Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person.John L. Pollock - 1995 - MIT Press.
    "A sequel to Pollock's How to Build a Person, this volume builds upon that theoretical groundwork for the implementation of rationality through artificial ...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   212 citations  
  • The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning.David A. Schum - 1994 - New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience.
    A detailed treatment regarding the diverse properties and uses of evidence and the judgmental tasks they entail. Examines various processes by which evidence may be developed or discovered. Considers the construction of arguments made in defense of the relevance and credibility of individual items and masses of evidence as well as the task of assessing the inferential force of evidence. Includes over 100 numerical examples to illustrate the workings of diverse probabilistic expressions for the inferential force of evidence and the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   55 citations  
  • Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic.Jaap Hage - 1996 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Rule-applying legal arguments are traditionally treated as a kind of syllogism. Such a treatment overlooks the fact that legal principles and rules are not statements which describe the world, but rather means by which humans impose structure on the world. Legal rules create legal consequences, they do not describe them. This has consequences for the logic of rule- and principle-applying arguments, the most important of which may be that such arguments are defeasible. This book offers an extensive analysis of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
    Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   80 citations  
  • 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   65 citations  
  • 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  
  • A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games.T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard & P. H. Leng - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):233-254.
    In this paper we describe a method for the specification of computationalmodels of argument using dialogue games. The method, which consists ofsupplying a set of semantic definitions for the performatives making upthe game, together with a state transition diagram, is described in full.Its use is illustrated by some examples of varying complexity, includingtwo complete specifications of particular dialogue games, Mackenzie's DC,and the authors' own TDG. The latter is also illustrated by a fully workedexample illustrating all the features of the game.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Abstract argumentation.Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
    In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?Henry Prakken - 2001 - Fundamenta Informaticae 48 (2-3):253-271.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 1999 - Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    In this work it is argued that legal justification can best be studied from a procedural, dialogical point of view: legal statements are justified if the audience is convinced in an argumentative dialog. The formalized and implemented model DiaLaw guards the procedure in which two players aim at justifying statements. DiaLaw shows the advances and problems linked to procedural models of legal justification. Moreover, an instructive discussion of the different models of procedural justification is provided. It is stressed that in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Hard cases: A procedural approach. [REVIEW]Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
    Much work on legal knowledge systems treats legal reasoning as arguments that lead from a description of the law and the facts of a case, to the legal conclusion for the case. The reasoning steps of the inference engine parallel the logical steps by means of which the legal conclusion is derived from the factual and legal premises. In short, the relation between the input and the output of a legal inference engine is a logical one. The truth of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  • Formalising ordinary legal disputes: A case study. [REVIEW]Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
    This paper presents a formal reconstruction of a Dutch civil legal case in Prakken’s formal model of adjudication dialogues. The object of formalisation is the argumentative speech acts exchanged during the dispute by the adversaries and the judge. The goal of this formalisation is twofold: to test whether AI & law models of legal dialogues in general, and Prakken’s model in particular, are suitable for modelling particular legal procedures; and to learn about the process of formalising an actual legal dispute.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations