Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 283–312

Evaluating Dialectical Structures

Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework represents an (argument-based) approach to non-monotonic, or defeasible reasoning. Debates are analysed as dialectical structures, i.e. argumentation systems with an attack- as well as a support-relationship. The recursive status assignment over the arguments is conditionalised on proponents in a debate. The problem of multiple status assignments arising on circular structures is solved by showing that uniqueness can be guaranteed qua reconstruction of a debate. The notion of burden of proof as well as other discursive aims rational proponents pursue in a debate is defined within the framework.

Keywords

Argumentation Defeasible reasoning Non-monotonic reasoning Argumentation framework Dialectics Burden of proof 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, A. B., & Ginsberg, M. L. (1989). A theorem prover for prioritized circumscription. In N. S. Sridharan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp 463–467). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Betz, G. (2005). The vicious circle theorem—a graph-theoretical analysis of dialectical structures. Argumentation, 19(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birnbaum, L. (1982). Argument molecules: A functional representation of argument structure. In D. L. Waltz (Ed.), Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 63–65). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93(1–2), 63–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bucher, T. G. (1998). Einführung in die angewandte Logik. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., et al. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chesñevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. G., & Loui, R. P. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 337–383. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/371578.371581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (2006). Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 170(2), 114–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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), 321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Govier, T. (1985). A practical study of argument. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hintikka, J. (1981). The logic of information-seeking dialogues. A model. In W. Becker, & W. K. Essler (Eds.), Konzepte der Dialektik (pp. 212–231). Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, F., & Shoham, Y. (1989). Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 245–255). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nolt, J. E. (1984). Informal logic: Possible worlds and imagination. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I. P., Brewka, G., & Pereira, L. M. (Eds.) (2000). Logics in Artificial Intelligence, European workshop, JELIA 2000 Malaga, Spain, 29 September–2 October, 2000. In Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1919). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pollock, J. L. (1970). The structure of epistemic justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4, 62–78.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(4), 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakken, H. (2000). On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzmán, G. Brewka, & L. M. Pereira (Eds.), Logics in artificial intelligence, European workshop, JELIA 2000 Malaga, Spain, 29 September–2 October, 2000. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1919, pp. 224–238). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1996). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3–4), 331–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2001). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd edn, Vol. 4, pp. 219–318). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics. A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schleichert, H. (1998). Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren. Anleitung zum subversiven Denken. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simari, G. R., & Loui, R. P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53(2–3), 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simari, G. R., Chesñevar, C. I., & García, A. J. (1994). The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In Anales de la XIV conferencia internacional de la sociedad chilena para ciencias de la computacíon (pp. 270–281). Chile: Univ. de Concepción.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2000). State-of-the-art: The structure of argumentation. Argumentation, 14, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tetens, H. (2004). Philosophisches Argumentieren. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomas, S. N. (1986). Practical reasoning in natural language (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, reasons, arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Dissertation, Universiteit Maastricht.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vreeswijk, G. (1993). Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(3), 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vreeswijk, G., & Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzmán, G. Brewka, & L. M. Pereira (Eds.), Logics in artificial intelligence, European workshop, JELIA 2000 Malaga, Spain, 29 September–2 October, 2000. Proceedings, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1919, pp. 239–253). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (1997). Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90(1–2), 225–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations