Results 11  20
of
833
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic
 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LAW
, 2003
"... 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 particula ..."
Abstract

Cited by 59 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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
Real arguments are approximate arguments
 In AAAI’07, 66–71
"... There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logicbased argumentation is that an argument is a pair 〈Φ, α 〉 where Φ is minimal su ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. However, real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) usually do not have enough explicitly presented premises for the entailment of the claim. This is because there is some common knowledge that can be assumed by a
1 Single Premise Deduction and Risk
"... It is tempting to think that multi premise closure creates a special class of paradoxes having to do with the accumulation of risks, and that these paradoxes could be escaped by rejecting the principle, while still retaining single premise closure. I argue that single premise deduction is also susce ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
susceptible to risks. I show that what I take to be the strongest argument for rejecting multi premise closure is also an argument for rejecting single premise closure. Because of the symmetry between the principles, they come as a package: either both will have to be rejected or both will have to be revised.
J. Goodwin’s “Manifestly Adequate Premises” Title: Manifestly Adequate Premises
"... At the last meeting of this Society, I pointed out that much recent work in informal logic has acknowledged the importance of taking contextual factors into account when assessing an argument (Goodwin, forthcoming b). In other words, the assessment of a unit of argument depends in part on features o ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
dubbed the "design approach." All that was rather abstract. In this paper, I propose to carry the project forward by exploring a particular issue in argument assessment: premise adequacy. In the first section, I define the question about premise adequacy that a normative pragmatic theory has
Real Arguments are Approximate Arguments
"... There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logicbased argumentation is that an argument is a pair 〈Φ,α 〉 where Φ is minimal subset ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. However, real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) usually do not have enough explicitly presented premises for the entailment of the claim. This is because there is some common knowledge that can be assumed by a
On argument strength
 THIS PAPER WILL APPEAR IN F. ZENKER (ED.), BAYESIAN ARGUMENTATION. BERLIN, HEIDELBERG: SYNTHESE LIBRARY (SPRINGER).
"... Everyday life reasoning and argumentation is defeasible and uncertain. I present a probability logic framework to rationally reconstruct everyday life reasoning and argumentation. Coherence in the sense of De Finetti is used as the basic rationality norm. I discuss two basic classes of approaches to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
to construct measures of argument strength. The first class imposes a probabilistic relation between the premises and the conclusion. The second class imposes a deductive relation. I argue for the second class, as the first class is problematic if the arguments involve conditionals. I present a measure
Joyce’s Argument for Probabilism
 Philosophy of Science
, 2002
"... Abstract. James Joyce’s ‘Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism ’ gives a new argument for the conclusion that a person’s credences ought to satisfy the laws of probability. The premises of Joyce’s argument include six axioms about what counts as an adequate measure of the distance of a credence fu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. James Joyce’s ‘Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism ’ gives a new argument for the conclusion that a person’s credences ought to satisfy the laws of probability. The premises of Joyce’s argument include six axioms about what counts as an adequate measure of the distance of a credence
Using Argumentation Strategies in Automated Argument Generation
 In Proceedings of the 1st International Natural Language Generation Conference
, 2000
"... using a variety of strategies, e.g., hypothetical reasoning, reasoning by cases and ordinary premisetogoal arguments. In this paper, we offer an operational definition of the conditions for pursuing these strategies, and incorporate into a Bayesian argumentgeneration system a mechanism for propos ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
using a variety of strategies, e.g., hypothetical reasoning, reasoning by cases and ordinary premisetogoal arguments. In this paper, we offer an operational definition of the conditions for pursuing these strategies, and incorporate into a Bayesian argumentgeneration system a mechanism
Argumentation Based on Classical Logic
"... Argumentation is an important cognitive process for dealing with conflicting information by generating and/or comparing arguments. Often it is based on constructing and comparing deductive arguments. These are arguments that involve some premises (which we refer to as the support of the argument) an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Argumentation is an important cognitive process for dealing with conflicting information by generating and/or comparing arguments. Often it is based on constructing and comparing deductive arguments. These are arguments that involve some premises (which we refer to as the support of the argument
There is no ‘truthmaker’ argument against nominalism
 Australasian Journal of Philosophy
, 1999
"... In his two recent books on ontology, Universals: an Opinionated Introduction, and A World of States of Affairs, David Armstrong gives a new argument against nominalism. That argument seems, on the face of it, to be similar to another argument that he used much earlier against Rylean behaviourism: th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
: the Truthmaker Argument, stemming from a certain plausible premise, the Truthmaker Principle. Other authors have traced the history of the truthmaker principle, its
Results 11  20
of
833