Abstract
In this paper, a case study is conducted to test the capability of the Carneades Argumentation System to model the argumentation in a case where forensic evidence was collected in an investigation triggered by a conflict among art experts on the attribution of a painting to Leonardo da Vinci. A claim that a portrait of a young woman in a Renaissance dress could be attributed to da Vinci was initially dismissed by art experts. Forensic investigations were carried out, and evidence was collected by art history experts and scientific experts. The expert opinions were initially in conflict, but new evidence shifted the burden of proof onto the side of the skeptics. This paper presents an analysis of the structure of the interlocking argumentation in the case using argument mapping tools to track the accumulation of evidence pro and con.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A NOVA program “Mystery of a Masterpiece,” aired by PBS on January 25, 2012, told the story of the case up to that date. A transcript can be found at www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/mystery-masterpiece.html, as of 08/09/2012. .
References
Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150:97–143
Bench-Capon TJM, Doutre S, Dunne PE (2007) Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artif Intell 171(1):42–71
Dung P (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357
Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Foris, Berlin
Gordon TF (2005) A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds), Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law. IAAIL Workshop Series, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 53–64
Gordon TF (2010) The Carneades Argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. College Publications, London
Gordon TF (2011) Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with Carneades. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL-2011: no editor given). ACM Press, New York, pp 50–55
Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades Argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207
Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260
Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875–896
Grennan W (1997) Informal logic. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston
Hamblin CL (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155
Hastings AC (1963) A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Evanston, Illinois
Josephson JR, Josephson S (1994) Abductive inference: computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kemp M, Cotte P (2010) La Bella Principessa. Hodder and Stoughton, London
Kienpointner M (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Fromman-Holzboog, Stuttgart
Kienpointner M (1997) On the art of finding arguments: what ancient and modern masters of invention have to tell us about the Ars Inveniendi. Argumentation 11:225–236
Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253
Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1):43–102
Shum SJB, MacLean A, Bellotti VME, Hammond NV (1997) Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human Computer Interaction 12(3):267–300
Tindale CW (1990) Audiences and acceptable premises: epistemic and logical conditions. In: van Eemeren F et al (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation. SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp 288–295
Van Gijzel B, Prakken H (2011) Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2011), Barcelona (Spain), pp 1113–1119
Walton D (2004) Abductive reasoning. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds), Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL Workshop Series, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103–111
Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue. SUNY Press, Albany
Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant 435-2012-0104 on the Carneades Argumentation System. My collaborator on the grant, Tom Gordon, has contributed to the research in the paper in many ways. I would also like to thank Bob Pinto, Phil Rose, and Chris Tindale for helpful comments and discussions when this paper was presented at a meeting in September 2012 of the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, D. An argumentation model of forensic evidence in fine art attribution. AI & Soc 28, 509–530 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-013-0447-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-013-0447-1