Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes
- Douglas N. Walton
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In this paper, a solution to the problem of analyzing burden of proof in argumentation is developed by building on the pioneering work of Erik C. W. Krabbe on metadialogues. Three classic cases of burden of proof disputes are analyzed, showing how metadialogue theory can solve the problems they pose. The solution is based on five dialectical requirements: (1) global burden of proof needs to be set at the confrontation stage of a dialogue, (2) there need to be special mechanisms for resolving disputes about burden of proof at all four stages of the dialogue, (3) they are especially significant during the argumentation stage, where burden of proof often shifts back and forth at each move, (4) such local shifts need to be partly regulated by the global burden of proof already set, and (5) the connection between burden of proof and the speech act of making a presumption in a dialogue needs to be clarified.
- Bench-Capon T. 2003, Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448. CrossRef
- Brewka G. 2001. Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 11, 257–282. CrossRef
- van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst 1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
- van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser 2002, Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof. In F. H. van Eemeren et al. (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 13–28.
- Finocchiaro M. A. 1980, Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
- Finocchiaro M. A. 2005, Arguments about Arguments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Grice H. P. 1975, Logic and Conversation. In D. Davidson, G. Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Dickenson, Encino (CA), pp. 64–75.
- Krabbe E. C. W. 1995, Appeal to Ignorance. In H. V. Hansen, R. C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 251–264.
- Krabbe E. C. W. 1999, Profiles of Dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, Y. Venema (eds.), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 25–36.
- Krabbe E. C. W. 2003, Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoek Henkemans (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 83–90.
- van Laar, J. A.: 2003, The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation (Ph.D. dissertation), Groningen University.
- Mackenzie J. D. 1979, How to Stop Talking to Tortoises. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20, 705–717. CrossRef
- Mackenzie J. D. 1981, The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse 24, 159–177.
- Park R. C., D. P. Leonard, S. H. Goldberg 1998, Evidence Law. West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota.
- Prakken H. 2001, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure. Fundamenta Informaticae 48, 253–271.
- Prakken, H., C. Reed and D. Walton: 2005, ‹Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 05), The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, pp. 115–124.
- Strong J. W. (Ed.) 1992, McCormick on Evidence (4th ed., vol. 2), West Publishing Co., St Paul, Minnesota.
- Walton D. 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. State University of New York Press, Albany.
- Walton D. 1996, Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.
- Walton D., E. C. W. Krabbe 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany.
- Wooldridge, M., P. McBurney and S. Parsons: 2005, ‹On the Meta-Logic of Arguments’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, pp. 560–567.
- Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes
Volume 21, Issue 3 , pp 291-316
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- burden of persuasion
- deadlocked dispute
- dialectical shifts
- evidence and proof
- hierarchical metalanguages
- legal argumentation
- metalogic of arguments
- speech acts
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada, R3B 2E9