www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/ staff/creed/

Abstract not found

This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes- a notion borrowed from the field of argumentation theory- are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e. valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation. 1

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Practical Reasoning 3. Argument Schemes and Defeasibility 4. Decision Calculi 5. Reasoning under Resource Constraints 6. Moral Considerations 7. Deliberation Dialogue 8. Interface Design 9. Evaluation 10. Summary Group 2 2 Practical Reasoning 1 Introduction When faced with difficult decisions about what to do, decision makers benefit from good advice. Good advice comes most reliably from advisors with relevant expertise. As well, good advice has at least three other essential features. First, the advice should be presented in a form which can be readily understood by the decision maker. Second, there should be ready access to both the information and the thinking that underpins the advice. Third, if decision making involves details which are at all unusual, the decision maker needs to be able to discuss those details with their advisors. Computer based systems are being increasingly used to assist people in decision making. Su

ABSTRACT: This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their critical questions can be characterized as an extension to traditional dialectical systems. The aim is to construct a dialectical system in which (i) the set of locutions is extended to include scheme-based moves (ii) the set of structural rules describes the roles that critical questioning can play; and (iii) the set of commitment rules distinguishes between exceptions and assumptions.

This paper is aimed at presenting a preliminary study on argument schemes. Argumentation theory has provided several sets of forms such as deductive, inductive and presumptive patterns of reasoning. The earliest accounts of argument schemes were advanced in Arthur Hastings ' Ph.D. thesis at Northwestern University (1963), and in Perelman and Obrechts-Tyteca’s work on the classification of loci in 1969. Other scheme sets have been developed by Toulmin, Rieke, Janik

Argumentation schemes are argument forms that represent inferential structures of arguments used in everyday discourse, and in special contexts like legal argumentation, scientific argumentation, and especially in AI. Deductive forms of inference like modus ponens and

Temporal logic arose at the border of philosophy and linguistics. From the seventies onward, it became a major tool also in computer science and articial intelligence, which have turned into the most powerful source of new logical developments since. We discuss some recent themes demonstrating new connections with modal logic. In the course of this, we also point out some new types of open research questions. Keywords: bisimulation, temporal languages, tree unraveling, bounded quantier, path geometry, dynamic evaluation, dynamic representation. 1 Variety of Motivations Temporal logic as an identiable research area emerged in the 50s, largely due to the pioneering eorts of Arthur Prior. Born some decades later than modern modal logic, it turned out technically much like it. But unlike in the case of modal logic, from the start, dierent motivations fed into temporal logic, coming from philosophy (analysis of historical argumentations involving the structure of time), linguistics ...

This talk surveys a number of methods currently being developed that assist in applying logic to the evaluation of arguments used in particular cases. A case is seen as specified by a given text and context of discourse. The methods used are pragmatic, and are based on the Gricean Cooperative Principle (CP), as implemented in several types of goal-directed conversational exchanges. How can logic best be applied to arguments? The goal of this address is to extend the boundaries of the subject known as logic towards the task of evaluating arguments as found in given cases of natural language argumentation. Of course, recently in philosophy, many influential voices are saying precisely that it is not possible to carry out this task (in an objective way that would be suitable for use in logic). I will argue that it can be done, or at least that there are resources available that can be brought to bear to show this task is quite possible and doable (at least, to some already worthwhile de...

Abstract not found