Argumentative Reasoning with ABEL
نویسنده
چکیده
Most formal approaches to argumentative reasoning under uncertainty focus on the analysis of qualitative aspects. An exception is the framework of probabilistic argumentation systems. Its philosophy is to include both qualitative and quantitative aspects through a simple way of combining logic and probability theory. Probabilities are used to weigh arguments for and against particular hypotheses. ABEL is a language that allows to describe probabilistic argumentation systems and corresponding queries about hypotheses. It then returns arguments and counter-arguments with corresponding numerical weights.
منابع مشابه
ABEL: An Interactive Tool for Probabilistic Argumentative Reasoning
Most formal approaches to argumentative reasoning under uncertainty focus on the analysis of qualitative aspects. An exception is the framework of probabilistic argumentation systems. Its philosophy is to include both qualitative and quantitative aspects through a simple way of combining logic and probability theory. Probabilities are used to weigh arguments for and against particular hypothese...
متن کاملThe Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence.
The argumentative theory of reasoning suggests that the main function of reasoning is to exchange arguments with others. This theory explains key properties of reasoning. When reasoners produce arguments, they are biased and lazy, as can be expected if reasoning is a mechanism that aims at convincing others in interactive contexts. By contrast, reasoners are more objective and demanding when th...
متن کاملWhy do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so co...
متن کاملTowards a Semantics for Argumentative Systems∗
Defeasible argumentation is one of the approaches that attempt to address the challenges arising when we reason defeasibly, with several formalisms in the literature reaching a mature state. Nowadays, several of them started shifting their semantics towards a dialectical characterization. Therefore, we believe that a sufficiently generic model of the process of dialectical reasoning could also ...
متن کاملAn Argumentative Semantics for Paraconsistent Reasoning in Description Logic ALC
It is well known that description logics cannot tolerate the incomplete or inconsistent data. Recently, inconsistency handling in description logics becomes more and more important. In this paper, we present an argumentative semantics for paraconsistent reasoning in inconsistent ontologies. An argumentative framework based on argument trees is provided to model argumentation in description logi...
متن کامل