Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority.Douglas Neil Walton - 1997 - University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    A new pragmatic approach, based on the latest developments in argumentation theory, analyzing appeal to expert opinion as a form of argument. Reliance on authority has always been a common recourse in argumentation, perhaps never more so than today in our highly technological society when knowledge has become so specialized—as manifested, for instance, in the frequent appearance of "expert witnesses" in courtrooms. When is an appeal to the opinion of an expert a reasonable type of argument to make, and when (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   88 citations  
  • (6 other versions)Logic and Conversation.H. Paul Grice - 2013 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Peterborough, CA: Broadview Press. pp. 47.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   685 citations  
  • Why Arguments from Expert Opinion are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
    In this paper, I argue that arguments from expert opinion, i.e., inferences from “Expert E says that p” to “p,” where the truth value of p is unknown, are weak arguments. A weak argument is an argument in which the premises, even if true, provide weak support—or no support at all—for the conclusion. Such arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments unless the fact that an expert says that p makes p significantly more likely to be true. However, research on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • (1 other version)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. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   105 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  
  • Argumentation schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   281 citations  
  • A logical analysis of burdens of proof.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2008 - In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • (1 other version)Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation.Douglas Neil Walton - 1989 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
    This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   139 citations  
  • (1 other version)Experts: Which ones should you trust?Alvin I. Goldman - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
    Mainstream epistemology is a highly theoretical and abstract enterprise. Traditional epistemologists rarely present their deliberations as critical to the practical problems of life, unless one supposes—as Hume, for example, did not—that skeptical worries should trouble us in our everyday affairs. But some issues in epistemology are both theoretically interesting and practically quite pressing. That holds of the problem to be discussed here: how laypersons should evaluate the testimony of experts and decide which of two or more rival experts is most (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   365 citations  
  • (6 other versions)Logic and Conversation.H. Paul Grice - 1975 - In Donald Davidson (ed.), The logic of grammar. Encino, Calif.: Dickenson Pub. Co.. pp. 64-75.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1089 citations  
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Phan Minh Dung - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence 77 (2):321-357.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   471 citations  
  • (1 other version)Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   552 citations  
  • Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   213 citations  
  • The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - unknown
    The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They Are.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (2):159-184.
    This paper offers a solution to the problem of understanding how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by “seeming to be valid”, or (better) appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation of how fallacies are deceptive is based on heuristics and paraschemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem that sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
    This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   68 citations  
  • Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques.Wayne Grennan - 1997 - Monterey, CA, USA: McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP.
    Grennan bases his evaluation of arguments on two criteria: logical adequacy and pragmatic adequacy. He asserts that the common formal logic systems, while logically sound, are not very useful for evaluating everyday inferences, which are almost all deductively invalid as stated. Turning to informal logic, he points out that while more recent informal logic and critical thinking texts are superior in that their authors recognize the need to evaluate everyday arguments inductively, they typically cover only inductive fallacies, ignoring the inductively (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations  
  • The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Ch Perelman, L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver - 1969 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 3 (4):249-254.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   379 citations  
  • (1 other version)Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
    This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments.Henry Prakken - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
    An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   142 citations  
  • Argument schemes for reasoning about trust.Simon Parsons, Katie Atkinson, Zimi Li, Peter McBurney, Elizabeth Sklar, Munindar Singh, Karen Haigh, Karl Levitt & Jeff Rowe - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):160-190.
    Trust is a natural mechanism by which an autonomous party, an agent, can deal with the inherent uncertainty regarding the behaviours of other parties and the uncertainty in the information it shares with those parties. Trust is thus crucial in any decentralised system. This paper builds on recent efforts to use argumentation to reason about trust. Specifically, a set of schemes is provided, and abstract patterns of reasoning that apply in multiple situations geared towards trust. Schemes are described in which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • The epistemology of scientific evidence.Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
    In place of the traditional epistemological view of knowledge as justified true belief we argue that artificial intelligence and law needs an evidence-based epistemology according to which scientific knowledge is based on critical analysis of evidence using argumentation. This new epistemology of scientific evidence (ESE) models scientific knowledge as achieved through a process of marshaling evidence in a scientific inquiry that results in a convergence of scientific theories and research results. We show how a dialogue interface of argument from expert (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Uses of Argument.Frederick L. Will & Stephen Toulmin - 1960 - Philosophical Review 69 (3):399.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   185 citations