Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper is on the formal modelling of reasoning about evidence. The main purpose is to advocate logical approaches as a worthwhile alternative to approaches rooted in probability theory. In particular, the use of logics for defeasible argumentation is investigated. Such logics model reasoning as the construction and comparison of arguments for and against a conclusion; this makes them very suitable for capturing the adversarial aspects that are so typical for legal evidential reasoning. Also, it will be shown that they facilitate the explicit modelling of different kinds of knowledge, such as the distinction between direct vs. ancillary evidence, and the explicit modelling of different types of evidential arguments, such as appeals to witness or expert opinion, applying generalisations, or temporal projections.
منابع مشابه
An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy
Argumentation is the process of supporting claims with grounds and defending them against attack. In the last decades argumentation has become an important topic in philosophy and artificial intelligence. In philosophy, the criticisms of Toulmin and Perelman of formal logic in the 1950s and 1960s gave rise to the field of informal logic, which studies informal models of reasoning and argumentat...
متن کاملRelations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assump...
متن کاملAnchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence
This paper concerns the reasoning with stories, evidence and generalisations in a legal context. We will make some notions from the existing Anchored Narratives theory more clear by making use of two formal techniques from AI, namely causal-abductive reasoning and default-style argumentation. We will propose a combination of these two formalisms which solves some of the problems of the causal-a...
متن کاملQuestions, Arguments, and Natural Language Semantics
Computational models of argumentation can be understood to bridge between human and automated reasoning. Argumentation schemes represent stereotypical, defeasible reasoning patterns. Critical questions are associated with argumentation schemes and are said to attack arguments. The paper highlights several issues with the current understanding of critical questions in argumentation. It provides ...
متن کاملEvidential Reasoning for Forensic Readiness
To learn from the past, we analyse 1,088 “computer as a target” judgments for evidential reasoning by extracting four case elements: decision, intent, fact, and evidence. Analysing the decision element is essential for studying the scale of sentence severity for cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Examining the intent element can facilitate future risk assessment. Analysing the fact element can e...
متن کامل