Abstract

We articulate a dialectical argumentation framework for qualitative representation of epistemic uncertainty in scientific domains. The framework is grounded in specific philosophies of science and theories of rational mutual discourse. We study the formal properties of our framework and provide it with a game theoretic semantics. With this semantics, we examine the relationship between the snaphots of the debate in the framework and the long run position of the debate, and prove a result directly analogous to the standard (Neyman-Pearson) approach to statistical hypothesis testing. We believe this formalism for representating uncertainty has value in domains with only limited knowledge, where experimental evidence is ambiguous or conflicting, or where agreement between different stakeholders on the quantification of uncertainty is difficult to achieve. All three of these conditions are found in assessments of carcinogenic risk for new chemicals.

Citations