The Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions

We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, called the Carneades Argumentation Framework, which applies proof standards [1] 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.

[1]  A. Lodder.  DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation , 1999 .

[2]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[4]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[5]  Jonathan Rees,et al.  Revised3 report on the algorithmic language scheme , 1986, SIGP.

[6]  Robin Milner,et al.  Definition of standard ML , 1990 .

[7]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Critical questions in computational models of legal argument , 2005 .

[8]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Paul Edwards,et al.  The Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 1969 .

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  From logic to dialectics in legal argument , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[11]  Nikos I. Karacapilidis,et al.  The Zeno argumentation framework , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[12]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes , 2005, Synthese.

[13]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[14]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[15]  David B. MacQueen,et al.  The Definition of Standard ML (Revised) , 1997 .

[16]  Jaap Hage,et al.  A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  John L. Pollock,et al.  How to Reason Defeasibly , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law , 2005 .

[19]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[20]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[21]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument , 1998 .

[22]  Arthur M. Farley,et al.  A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[23]  R. Kent Dybvig,et al.  Revised5 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme , 1986, SIGP.

[24]  DungPhan Minh.  On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games , 1995 .

[25]  M. Hesse.  THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY , 1969 .

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Chris and Douglas Walton,'towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations' , 2003 .

[27]  Timothy G. W. Gordon,et al.  A theory construction approach to legal document assembly , 1989 .

[28]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Pierson vs. Post Revisited - A Reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework , 2006, COMMA.

[29]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Arguing about cases as practical reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[30]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .