Abstract
In this chapter a case study is conducted to test the capability of the Carneades Argumentation System (CAS) 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 portrait to Leonardo da Vinci. A claim that a portrait of a young woman in a Renaissance dress could be attributed to Leonardo 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 chapter 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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
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.
- 2.
References
Bench-Capon, T.J.M and G. Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2): 97–143.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. 2007. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71.
Buckingham Shum, S.J., A. MacLean, V.M.E. Bellotti, and N.V. Hammond. 1997. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction 12(3): 267–300.
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(2): 321–357.
Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Berlin: Foris.
Gordon, T.F. 2005. A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL workshop series, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 53–64. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Gordon, T.F. 2010. The Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C.W. Tindale. London: College Publications.
Gordon, T.F. 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), 50–55. New York: ACM Press.
Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In Argumentation and artificial intelligence, ed. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.
Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 875–896.
Grennan, W. 1997. Informal logic. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hamblin, C.L. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37(2): 130–155.
Hastings, A.C. 1963. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kemp, M., and P. Cotte. 2010. La Bella Principessa. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Kienpointner, M. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 2009. A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In Legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 223–253. Farnham: Ashgate.
Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.
Tindale, C.W. 1990. Audiences and acceptable premises: Epistemic and logical conditions. In Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation, ed. F. van Eemeren et al., 288–295. Amsterdam: SICSAT.
van Gijzel, B., and H. Prakken. 2011. Relating carneades with abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), 1113–1119, Barcelona, Spain.
Walton, D. 2004. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2005. Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL workshop series, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 103–111. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2011. Modeling Critical Questions as Additional Premises. In Argument cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International OSSA Conference, ed. F. Zenker, 1–13. Windsor, University of Windsor. Available at http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/11OSSA.pdf.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (2016). Attribution of a Portrait to Leonardo da Vinci. In: Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19625-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19626-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)