Argument Theory Change Through Defeater Activation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argument Theory Change applies classic belief change concepts to the area of argumentation. This intersection of fields takes advantage of the definition of a Dynamic Abstract Argumentation Framework, in which an argument is either active or inactive, and only in the former case it is taken into consideration in the reasoning process. An approach for an argument revision operator defined through deactivation of arguments can be found in the literature. The present article is inspired by that approach, and complements it by considering activation of arguments to define a revision operator.
منابع مشابه
Can Teleosemantics Deflect the EAAN?
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism aims to show that the conjunction of contemporary evolutionary theory (E) with the claim that there is no God (N) cannot be rationally accepted. Where R is the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable, the argument is: P1. The probability of R given N and E is low or inscrutable. P2. Anyone who sees (1) and accepts (N&E) has a de...
متن کاملCan teleosemantics deflect the EAAN?
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism aims to show that the conjunction of contemporary evolutionary theory (E) with the claim that there is no God (N) cannot be rationally accepted. Where R is the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable, the argument is: P1. The probability of R given N and E is low or inscrutable. P2. Anyone who sees (1) and accepts (N&E) has a de...
متن کاملOn Acceptability in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with an Extended Defeat Relation
Defeat between arguments is established by a combination of two basic elements: a conflict or defeat relation, and a preference relation on the arguments involved in this conflict. We present a new abstract framework for argumentation where two kinds of defeat are present, depending on the outcome of the preference relation: an argument may be a proper defeater or a blocking defeater of another...
متن کاملINVESTIGATING THE VALIDITY OF PHD ENTRANCE EXAM OF ELT IN IRAN IN LIGHT OF ARGUMENT-BASED VALIDITY AND THEORY OF ACTION
Although some piecemeal efforts have been made to investigate the validity and use of the Iranian PhD exam, no systematic project has been specifically carried out in this regard. The current study, hence, tried to attend to this void. As such, to ensure a balanced focus on test interpretation and test consequence, and to track evidence derived from a mixed–method study on the validity of Irani...
متن کاملA Preliminary Reification of Argument Theory Change
In this article we introduce the basics for understanding the mechanisms of Argument Theory Change. In particular we reify it using Defeasible Logic Programming. In this formalism, knowledge bases are represented through defeasible logic programs. The main change operation we define over a defeasible logic program is a special kind of revision that inserts a new argument and then modifies the r...
متن کامل