Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 291–316 | Cite as

Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes

Article

Abstract

In this paper, a solution to the problem of analyzing burden of proof in argumentation is developed by building on the pioneering work of Erik C. W. Krabbe on metadialogues. Three classic cases of burden of proof disputes are analyzed, showing how metadialogue theory can solve the problems they pose. The solution is based on five dialectical requirements: (1) global burden of proof needs to be set at the confrontation stage of a dialogue, (2) there need to be special mechanisms for resolving disputes about burden of proof at all four stages of the dialogue, (3) they are especially significant during the argumentation stage, where burden of proof often shifts back and forth at each move, (4) such local shifts need to be partly regulated by the global burden of proof already set, and (5) the connection between burden of proof and the speech act of making a presumption in a dialogue needs to be clarified.

Keywords

burden of persuasion deadlocked dispute dialectical shifts evidence and proof hierarchical metalanguages legal argumentation metalogic of arguments presumption speech acts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bench-Capon T. 2003, Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewka G. 2001. Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 11, 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst 1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Erlbaum, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  4. van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser 2002, Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof. In F. H. van Eemeren et al. (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
  5. Finocchiaro M. A. 1980, Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Finocchiaro M. A. 2005, Arguments about Arguments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Grice H. P. 1975, Logic and Conversation. In D. Davidson, G. Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Dickenson, Encino (CA), pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
  8. Krabbe E. C. W. 1995, Appeal to Ignorance. In H. V. Hansen, R. C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 251–264.Google Scholar
  9. Krabbe E. C. W. 1999, Profiles of Dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, Y. Venema (eds.), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
  10. Krabbe E. C. W. 2003, Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoek Henkemans (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 83–90.Google Scholar
  11. van Laar, J. A.: 2003, The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation (Ph.D. dissertation), Groningen University.Google Scholar
  12. Mackenzie J. D. 1979, How to Stop Talking to Tortoises. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20, 705–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mackenzie J. D. 1981, The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse 24, 159–177.Google Scholar
  14. Park R. C., D. P. Leonard, S. H. Goldberg 1998, Evidence Law. West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  15. Prakken H. 2001, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure. Fundamenta Informaticae 48, 253–271.Google Scholar
  16. Prakken, H., C. Reed and D. Walton: 2005, ‹Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 05), The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, pp. 115–124.Google Scholar
  17. Strong J. W. (Ed.) 1992, McCormick on Evidence (4th ed., vol. 2), West Publishing Co., St Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  18. Walton D. 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  19. Walton D. 1996, Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  20. Walton D., E. C. W. Krabbe 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  21. Wooldridge, M., P. McBurney and S. Parsons: 2005, ‹On the Meta-Logic of Arguments’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, pp. 560–567.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations