Historical Overview of Formal Argumen- tation
نویسنده
چکیده
This chapter gives an overview of the history of formal argumentation in terms of a distinction between argumentation-based inference and argumentation-based dialogue. Systems for argumentationbased inference are about which conclusions can be drawn from a given body of possibly incomplete, inconsistent of uncertain information. They ultimately define a nonmonotonic notion of logical consequence, in terms of the intermediate notions of argument construction, argument attack and argument evaluation, where arguments are seen as constellations of premises, conclusions and inferences. Systems for argumentation-based dialogue model argumentation as a kind of verbal interaction aimed at resolving conflicts of opinion. They define argumentation protocols, that is, the rules of the argumentation game, and address matters of strategy, that is, how to play the game well. For both aspects of argumentation the main formal and computational models are reviewed and their main historical influences are sketched. Then some main applications areas are
منابع مشابه
The Conceptual and Linguistic Facets of Persuasive Arguments
This paper provides a body of knowledge that characterizes persuasive arguments, which is thoroughly grounded in empirical data derived from communication studies , psychology, and social studies of persuasion. The paper also discusses the limitations of current theories of argumen-tation and systems in accommodating both the conceptual and linguistic facets of persuasive arguments.
متن کاملObservations on Sick Mathematics
And you claim to have discovered this. .. from observations on sick people? This paper argues that new light may be shed on mathematical reasoning in its non-pathological forms by careful observation of its patholo-gies. The first section explores the application to mathematics of recent work on fallacy theory, specifically the concept of an 'argumentation scheme': a characteristic pattern unde...
متن کاملDialogue Requirements for Argumentation Systems
We consider the requirements of an ideal automated argumen-tation system designed to model human interactions and compare them with the capabilities of our argumentation system, NAG. We ground our discussion with a description of NAG's architecture, particularly emphasizing NAG's knowledge representation scheme, which supports the consideration of domain and user model information as well as co...
متن کاملUsing Goals, Rules, and Methods to Support Reasoning in Business Process Re-engineering
One step towards a more systematic approach to the design of business processes is to develop models that provide appropriate representations of the knowledge that is needed for understanding and for reasoning about business processes. We present a modelling framework which uses goals, rules, and methods to support the systematic analysis and design of business processes. The framework consists...
متن کاملKlasifikasi Komponen Argumen Secara Otomatis pada Dokumen Teks berbentuk Esai Argumentatif
Abstrak Dengan pengenalan argumen secara otomatis dari dokumen teks, penulis esai dapat melakukan inspeksi pada teks yang mereka tulis. Hal ini akan membantu penilaian esai secara lebih objektif dan tepat karena penilai esai akan melihat seberapa baik komponen argumentasi terbentuk. Beberapa peneliti mencoba untuk melakukan pendeteksian dan klasifikasi argumen serta penerapannya pada berbagai d...
متن کامل