Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Abstract argumentation has been shown to be a powerful tool within many fields such as artificial intelligence, logic and legal reasoning. In this paper we enhance Dung’s well-known abstract argumentation framework with explanatory capabilities. We show that an explanatory argumentation framework (EAF) obtained in this way is a useful tool for the modeling of scientific debates. On the one hand, EAFs allow for the representation of explanatory and justificatory arguments constituting rivaling scientific views. On the other hand, different procedures for selecting arguments, corresponding to different methodological and epistemic requirements of theory evaluation, can be formulated in view of our framework.

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

  • Aliseda A. (2006) Abductive reasoning. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Amgoud L., Cayrol C. (1998) On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Cooper G, Moral S. (eds) UAI. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2002). Value based argumentation frameworks. In CoRR (pp. 444–453). cs.AI/0207059, informal publication.

  • Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T.J.M., Doutre S., Dunne P. E. (2007) Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez J. L. (2005) Philosophy of psychology: A contemporary introduction.: Routledge

  • Bondarenko A., Dung P. M., Kowalski R. A., Toni F. (1997) An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93: 63–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caminada, M. (2006). Semi-stable semantics. In Computational models of argument (pp. 121–132). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  • Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In L. Godo (Ed.), ECSQARU. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3571, pp. 378–389). New York: Springer.

  • Coste-Marquis S., Devred C., Konieczny S., Lagasquie-Schiex M.-C., Marquis P. (2007) On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 171: 730–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, M. (2000). Epistemology and controversies. In T. Y. Cao (Ed.), Philosophy of science: Proceedings of the twentieth world congress of philosophy (Vol. 10, pp. 159–192). Philadelphia: Philosophers Index Inc.

  • Dung, P. M. (1993). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence, proceedings (pp. 852–859).

  • 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: 321–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung P. M., Mancarella P., Toni F. (2007) Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence. 171: 642–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P. M. & Son, T. C. (1996). An argumentation-theoretic approach to reasoning with specificity. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’96). Cambridge, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publischers, Inc.

  • Gould, S. J. (1977). Ever since Darwin. In The validation of continental drift (pp. 160–167). Harvard: Harvard University.

  • Hempel C. (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C., & Oppenheim, P. (1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15(2).

  • Hughes W. (1992) Critical thinking. Broadview Press, Petersborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Cock, M. D., & Vermeir, D. (2008). Fuzzy argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of IPMU 2008 (12th international conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems) (pp. 513–520).

  • Kitcher P. (1981) Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science 48: 507–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T. (1962) Structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand H. E. (1988) Drifting continents and shifting theories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino H. E. (1990) Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. University Press Princeton, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes G. R. (2000) Resisting explanation. Argumentation 14: 361–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modgil, S. (2006). Hierarchical argumentation. In M. Fisher, W. van der Hoek, B. Konev, & A. Lisitsa (Eds.), JELIA. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4160, pp. 319–332). New York: Springer.

  • Modgil S. (2009) Reasoning about preference in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence. 173(9-10): 901–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin B., Irandoust H., Bélanger M., Desbordes G. (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: Towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artificial Intelligence Review. 17(3): 169–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S. H. & Parsons, S. (2006). A generalization of Dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In N. Maudet, S. Parsons, & I. Rahwan (Eds.), Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4766, pp. 54–73). New York: Springer.

  • Oren, N., & Norman, T. J. (2008). Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on computational models of argument (pp. 276–284). IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Oreskes N. (1999) The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pera M. (1994) The discourses of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Pera M. (2000) Rhetoric and scientific controversies. In: Peter Machamer M. P., Baltas A. (eds) Scientific controversies: Philosophical and historical perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 50–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurz, G. (1991). Erklärungsmodelle in der Wissenschaftstheorie und in der Künstlichen Intelligenz. In H. Stoyan (Ed.), Proceedings of Erklärung im Gespräch—Erklärung im Mensch-Maschine-Dialog (pp. 1–42). New York: Springer.

  • Stewart J. A. (1990) Drifting continents and colliding paradigms: Perspectives on the geoscience revolution. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P. (1992) Conceptual revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P. (2007) Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74(1): 28–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber E. (1999) Unification: What is it, how do we reach and why do we want it?.  Synthese 118(3): 479–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Dunja Šešelja & Christian Straßer

Authors
  1. Dunja Šešelja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Straßer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dunja Šešelja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Šešelja, D., Straßer, C. Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates. Synthese 190, 2195–2217 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9964-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9964-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation