Risk Agoras: Dialectical Argumentation for Scientific Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
We propose a formal framework for intelligent systems which can reason about scientific do mains, in particular about the carcinogenicity of chemicals, and we study its properties. Our framework is grounded in a philosophy of sci entific enquiry and discourse, and uses a model of dialectical argumentation. The formalism en ables representation of scientific uncertainty and conflict in a manner suitable for qualitative rea soning about the domain.
منابع مشابه
Strawmen and eidolons: using argumentation to reason across scenarios
We propose a dialectical argumentation formalism for qualitative reasoning under uncertainty in a context of alternative scenarios. Our formalism extends prior work representing knowledge uncertainty using dialectical argumentation in participant interaction spaces called Agoras. We define the notion of a scenario in this framework and consider its formal properties. In particular, we ask when ...
متن کاملFormalizing Scenario Analysis
We propose a formal treatment of scenarios in the context of a dialectical argumentation formalism for qualitative reasoning about uncertain propositions. Our formalism extends prior work in which arguments for and against uncertain propositions were presented and compared in interaction spaces called Agoras. We now define the notion of a scenario in this framework and use it to define a set of...
متن کاملOn the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation
In the present paper, the existence and multiplicity problems of extensions are addressed. The focus is on extension of the stable type. The main result of the paper is an elegant characterization of the existence and multiplicity of extensions in terms of the notion of dialectical justification, a close cousin of the notion of admissibility. The characterization is given in the context of the ...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملArgumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning
Argumentation concepts have been applied to numerous knowledge engineering endeavours in recent years. For example, a variety of logics have been developed to represent argumentation in the context of a dialectical situation such as a dialogue. In contrast to the dialectical approach, argumentation has also been used to structure knowledge. This can be seen as a non-dialectical approach. The To...
متن کامل