Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computational Representation of Practical Argument

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we consider persuasion in the context of practical reasoning, and discuss the problems associated with construing reasoning about actions in a manner similar to reasoning about beliefs. We propose a perspective on practical reasoning as presumptive justification of a course of action, along with critical questions of this justification, building on the account of Walton. From this perspective, we articulate an interaction protocol, which we call PARMA, for dialogues over proposed actions based on this theory. We outline an axiomatic semantics for the PARMA Protocol, and discuss two implementations which use this protocol to mediate a discussion between humans. We then show how our proposal can be made computational within the framework of agents based on the Belief-Desire-Intention model, and illustrate this proposal with an example debate within a multi agent system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, K. and T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney: 2004, ‘PARMENIDES: Facilitating democratic debate’, in Electronic Government 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3183, pp. 313–316.

  • Atkinson, K., T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney: 2005a, ‘Arguing about cases as practical reasoning’, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA. pp. 35–44.

  • Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. and McBurney P. (2005). ‘A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument for proposals over action’. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2): 155–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T.: (2003). ‘Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks’. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. and Sartor G. (2003). ‘A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values’. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2): 97–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beun R-J. and Eijk R.M. (2004). ‘A co-operative dialogue game for resolving ontological discrepancies’. In: Dignum, F. (eds) Advances in Agent Communication, LNAI 2922, pp 349–363. Springer, Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G. and T. F. Gordon: 1994, ‘How to buy a porsche: an approach to defeasible decision making’, in Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 28–38.

  • Doutre, S., T. Bench-Capon, and P. E. Dunne: 2005, ‘Explaining preferences with argument positions’, in Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1560–1561.

  • Dung P. M. (1995). ‘On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning logic programming and n-person games’. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne P.E. and Bench-Capon T. (2004). ‘Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains’. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M. and Traunmüller, R. (eds) Database and Expert Systems Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3180, pp 518–527. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgeff, M. P. and A. L. Lansky: 1987, ‘Reactive reasoning and planning’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), Seattle, WA. pp. 677–682.

  • Gordon, T. F. and N. I. Karacapilidis: 1997, ‘The Zeno Argumentation Framework’, in Proceedings of 6th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-2003), ACM Press, New York, pp. 10–18.

  • Grasso, F., A. Cawsey, and R. Jones: ‘Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 1077–1115.

  • Greenwood, K., T. Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2003, ‘Towards a computational account of persuasion in law’, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-2003), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 22–31.

  • Habermas, J.: 1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. (Translation by W. Rehg).

  • Hamblin C.L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarke M., Jelassi M.T. and Shakun M.F. (1987). ‘MEDIATOR: Towards a negotiation support system’. European Journal of Operational Research 31: 314–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, A. J. P.: 1975, Practical Reasoning and Rational Appetite Reprinted in Raz (1978).

  • Labrou Y., Finin T. and Peng Y. (1999). ‘Agent communication languages: The current landscape’. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(2): 45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lührs R., Albrecht S., Lübcke M. and Hohberg B. (2003). ‘How to grow? Online consultation about growth in the city of Hamburg: methods techniques success factors’. In: Traunmüller, R. (eds) Electronic Government (EGOV 2003), pp 79–84. Springer, Berlin Germany

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie J.D. (1979). ‘Question-begging in non-cumulative systems’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 117–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBurney P. and Parsons S. (2002). ‘Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents’. Journal of Logic Language and Information 11(3): 315–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. and P. J. Hayes: 1969, ‘Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence’, in B. Melzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh University Press, PP. 463–502.

  • (2001). Varieties of Practical Reasoning. MIT Press, A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Modgil, S. and J. Fox: 2004, ‘A guardian agent approach to safety in medical multi-agent systems’, in proceedings of the First International Workshop on Safety and Security in Multi-Agent Systems (SASEMAS), AAMAS 2004, New York, NY, USA.

  • Perelman C. (1980). Justice Law and Argument. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • (1978). Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson H. S. (1994). Practical Reasoning about Final Ends. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J.R. (2001). Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra C., Jennings N.R., Noriega P. and Parsons S. (1998). ‘A Framework for Argument Based Negotiation’. In: Rao, A., Singh, M., and Wooldridge, M. (eds) Intelligent Agents, IV LNAI, pp 1. Springer, Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamma, V. and T. J. M. Bench-Capon: 2001, ‘A conceptual model to facilitate knowledge sharing in multi-agent systems’, in Proceedings of Autonomous Agents 2001 Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems (OAS 2001), Montreal, Canada, pp. 69–76.

  • Tamma, V., I. Blacoe, B. Lithgow-Smith, and M. Wooldridge: 2004, ‘SERSE: Searching for Semantic Web Content’, in R. López de Mántaras and L. Saitta (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-04), pp. 63–67.

  • Tennent R. D. (1991). Semantics of Programming Languages. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B. (1990). ‘Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic’. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven Knowledge-Based Action-Guiding Argumentation. Rowman and Littlefield Savage, Maryland, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1996). Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. and Krabbe E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge M.J. (2000). Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

    Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Peter McBurney

Authors
  1. Katie Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter McBurney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Atkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. & McBurney, P. Computational Representation of Practical Argument. Synthese 152, 157–206 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-3488-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-3488-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation