The Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, called the Carneades Argumentation Framework, which applies proof standards [5] to determine the defensibility of arguments and the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. Carneades uses three kinds of premises (ordinary premises, presumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (undisputed, at issue, accepted or rejected) to model critical questions in such a way as to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate.
منابع مشابه
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
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 ...
متن کاملA Reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework
The Pierson vs. Post case [1] has become an important benchmark in the field of AI and Law for computational models of argumentation. In [2], BenchCapon used Pierson vs. Post to motivate the use of values and value preferences in his theory-construction account of legal argument. And in a more a recent paper by Atkinson, Bench-Capon and McBurney [3], it was used to illustrate a formalization of...
متن کاملA principled approach to the implementation of argumentation models
Argumentation theory combines philosophical concepts and computational models to deliver a practical approach to reasoning that handles uncertain information and possibly conflicting viewpoints. This paper focuses on the structured approach to argumentation that incorporates domain specific knowledge and argumentation schemes. There is a lack of implementations and implementation methods for mo...
متن کاملRelating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation
Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proo...
متن کاملCritical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have interpreted critical questions as premises of arguments that can be defeated using Pollock’s concepts of undercutters and rebuttals. Using the scheme for arguments from expert opinion as an example, this paper evaluates and compares these two models of critical questions from the perspective of argu...
متن کامل