AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 353–377 | Cite as

Deliberative discourse and reasoning from generic argument structures

Original Article

Abstract

In this article a dialectical model for practical reasoning within a community, based on the Generic/Actual Argument Model (GAAM) is advanced and its application to deliberative dialogue discussed. The GAAM, offers a dynamic template for structuring knowledge within a domain of discourse that is connected to and regulated by a community. The paper demonstrates how the community accepted generic argument structure acts to normatively influence both admissible reasoning and the progression of dialectical reasoning between participants. It is further demonstrated that these types of deliberation dialogues supported by the GAAM comply with criteria for normative principles for deliberation, specifically, Alexy’s rules for discourse ethics and Hitchcock’s Principles of Rational Mutual Inquiry. The connection of reasoning to the community in a documented and transparent structure assists in providing best justified reasons, principles of deliberation and ethical discourse which are important advantages for reasoning communities.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. David Hitchcock from the Philosophy Department at McMaster University for carefully reviewing this work and providing suggestions that have greatly helped to improve the paper. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council.

References

  1. Afshar F, Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2006) A tool for assisting group decision making for consensus outcomes in organization. In: Voges K, Pope N (eds) Business applications and computational intelligence. IDEA Group Publishing, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexy R (1978) A theory of practical discourse. In: Benhabib S, Dallmayr F (eds) The communicative ethics controversy, studies in contemporary German social thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA pp 151–190. 1990 Translation by Frisby D of: Eine Theorie des praktischen Diskurses. In: Oelmuller W (ed), Normenbegrundung-Normendurchsetzung. Paderborn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000a) Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Durfee (ed) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS-2000). IEEE Press, New York, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  4. Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000b) Arguments, dialogue and negotiation. In: Horn (ed) Proceedings of the fourteenth european conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-2000). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 338–342Google Scholar
  5. Avery J, Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2001) An argumentation-based multi-agent system for eTourism Dialogue. HIS 2001. International Workshop on Hybrid Intelligent Systems, pp 497–512Google Scholar
  6. Baker MJ (1998) The function of argumentation dialogue in cooperative problem-solving. In: van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard CA (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference on argumentation (ISSA98). SIC SAT Publications, Amsterdam, pp 27–33Google Scholar
  7. Carbogim D, Robertson D, Lee J (2000) Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowl Eng Rev 15(2):119–149MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen P (1985) Heuristic reasoning about uncertainty: an artificial intelligence approach. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Emery M, Purser R (1995) The search conference: a powerful method for planning organizational change and community action. Jesse-Bass Public Administration Series, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  11. Farley AM, Freeman K (1995) Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, May 21–24, pp 156–164Google Scholar
  12. Fox J (1986) Knowledge, decision making and uncertainty. In: Gale WA (ed) Artificial intelligence and statistics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox J, Parsons S (1998) Arguing about beliefs and actions. In: Hunter A, Parsons S (eds) Applications of uncertainty formalisms. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 266–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Girle R, Hitchcock DL, McBurney P, Verheij B (2003) Decision support for practical reasoning: a theoretical and computational perspective. Argumentation Machines. New frontiers in argument and computation. In: Reed C, Norman TJ (eds) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 55–84Google Scholar
  15. Gordon TF (1995) The pleadings game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis NI (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  17. Govier T (1987) Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Govier T (1992) A practical study of argument. 3rd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Hitchcock D (1991) Some principles of rational mutual inquiry. In: van Eemeren F, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard CA (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (AAAI 2000). SICSAT: International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp 236–243Google Scholar
  20. Hitchcock D, McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) A framework for deliberation dialogues, argumentation and its applications. In: Proceedings of the fourth biennial conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentationGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulstijn J (2000) Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction. PhD thesis, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Ann Math Artif Intell 32(1–4):125–169CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. McBurney P, Parsons S, Wooldridge M (2002) Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Proceedings of the international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS-02). ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. McBurney P, van Eijk RM, Parsons S, Amgoud L (2003) A dialogue game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. J Autonom Agents Multi-Agent Syst 7(3):235–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollock JL (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Sci 11:481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poole DL (1988) A logical framework for default reasoning. Artif Intell 36:27–47MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Prakken H (1993) A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York pp 1–9Google Scholar
  29. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4:331–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rittel HWJ, Webber MW (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadri F, Toni F, Torroni P (2001) Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In: Schroeder M, Stathis K (eds) Proceedings of the symposium on information agents for e-commerce, artificial intelligence and the simulation of behaviour conference. AISBGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh MP (2000) A social semantics for agent communications languages. In: Dignum F, Chaib-draa B, Weigand H (eds) Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-99) workshop on agent communication languages. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Gawler M, Lewis B (1999) A hybrid rule-neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Yearwood J (2001a) Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 16(4):331–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stranieri A, Yearwood J, Zeleznikow J (2001b) Tools for world wide web based legal decision support systems. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL’01. ACM Press, New York, pp 206–214Google Scholar
  36. Stranieri A, Yearwood J, Gervasoni S, Garner S, Deans C, Johnstone A (2004) Web-based decision support for structured reasoning in health. Twelfth national health informatics conference. Health Informatics Society of Australia. p 61Google Scholar
  37. Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Verheij B (1996) Rules, reasons, arguments. formal studies of argumentation and defeat. PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  39. Verheij B (1999) Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 43–52Google Scholar
  40. Vreeswijk GAW (1993) Defeasible dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. J Logic Comput 3(3):3–27CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Vreeswijk GAW (1997) Abstract argumentation systems. Artif Intell 90:225–279MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilhelm AG (2000) Democracy in the digital age. Challenges to political life in the digital age Routledge. USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Wohlrapp H (1998) A new light on non-deductive argumentation schemes. Argumentation 12:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yearwood J, Stranieri A (1999) The integration of retrieval, reasoning and drafting for refugee law: a third generation legal knowledge based system Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ICAIL’99 ACM Press, New York, pp 117–137Google Scholar
  46. Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2000a) Knowledge as arguments for facilitating e-commerce dialogue. In: Proceedings of the sixth CollECTeR conference on electronic commerce, CollECTeR’2000Google Scholar
  47. Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2000b) An argumentation shell for knowledge based systems. In: Proceedings of IASTED international conference on law and technology, pp 105–111Google Scholar
  48. Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2002) Generic arguments: a framework for supporting online deliberative discourse. In: Enabling organisations and society through information systems, proceedings of the thirteenth australasian conference on information systems (ACIS’2002), pp 337–346Google Scholar
  49. Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2006) The generic/actual argument model for practical reasoning. Dec Support Syst 41(2):358–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Informatics and Applied OptimizationUniversity of BallaratBallaratAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information Technology and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Ballarat (CRICOS Provider Number 00103D)BallaratAustralia

Personalised recommendations