Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 125–165

Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations

Authors

  • Floris Bex
    • Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht University
  • Henry Prakken
    • Faculty of LawUniversity of Groningen
  • Chris Reed
    • Division of Applied ComputingUniversity of Dundee
  • Douglas Walton
    • Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Winnipeg
Article

DOI: 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a

Cite this article as:
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. et al. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2003) 11: 125. doi:10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a

Abstract

This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003