Synthese

, Volume 157, Issue 2, pp 197–240 | Cite as

Evaluating Practical Reasoning

Article

Abstract

In this paper, the defeasible argumentation scheme for practical reasoning (Walton 1990) is revised. To replace the old scheme, two new schemes are presented, each with a matching set of critical questions. One is a purely instrumental scheme, while the other is a more complex scheme that takes values into account. It is argued that a given instance of practical reasoning can be evaluated, using schemes and sets of critical questions, in three ways: by attacking one or more premises of the argument, by attacking the inferential link between the premises and conclusion, or by mounting a counter-argument. It is argued that such an evaluation can be carried out in many cases using an argument diagram structure in which all components of the practical reasoning in the case are represented as premises, conclusions, and inferential links between them that can be labeled as argumentation schemes. This system works if every critical question can be classified as a assumption of or an exception to the original argument. However, it is also argued that this system does not work in all cases, namely those where epistemic closure is problematic because of intractable disputes about burden of proof.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. W. D. Ross, Oxford, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2004a, ‘Justifying Practical Reasoning’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational–Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004a), ECAI, Valencia, Spain, pp. 87–90.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2005, ‘Persuasive Political Argument’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), eds. F. Grasso, C. Reed and R. Kibble, Edinburgh, 2005, pp. 44–51.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2004b, ‘PARMENIDES: Facilitating Democratic Debate’, Electronic Government, ed. R. Traunmuller, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 3183. Third International Conference on eGovernment (EGOV 2004), DEXA 2004, Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2005, ‘Agent Decision Making Using Argumentation About Actions’, Technical Report ULCS-05–006, University of Liverpool, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
  6. Robert Audi: 1989, Practical Reasoning, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon Trevor: 2003a, ‘Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks’, Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448Google Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon Trevor: 2003b, ‘Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue between Parties without a Consensus about Values’, Informal Logic 22, 2310245.Google Scholar
  9. Bratman Michael: 1987, Intention, Plans and Practical Reason, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. Bratman Michael E., David J. Israel, and Martha E. Pollack: 1988, ‘Plans and Resource-bounded Practical Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 4, 349–355.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke David S., Jr. (1985) Practical Inferences. London, Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
  12. Girle Rod, David Hitchcock, Peter McBurney, and Bart Verheij: 2003, ‘Decision Support for Practical Reasoning: A Theoretical and Computational Perspective’, in (eds.), Chris Reed and Timothy J. Norman, Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, Dordrecht, Kluwer 58–84.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon Thomas F.: 2003, ‘Introductory Tutorial: Artificial Intelligence Models of Legal Argumentation’, ECCO Competence Center, Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon Thomas F. and Nikos Karacapilidis: 1997, ‘The Zeno Argumentation Framework’, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, 10–18.Google Scholar
  15. Gordon Thomas F. and Gernot Richter: 2002, ‘Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy’, in Roland Traunmuller and Lalus Lenk, (eds.), eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV), Aix-en-Provence, Springer Verlag, pp. 248–255.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon Thomas F. and Douglas Walton: 2005, ‘Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument’, Paper Accepted for the Workshop on Argumentation and AI, Bologna, International Conference on AI and Law.Google Scholar
  17. Hitchcock David (2002) ‘Pollock on Practical Reasoning’. Informal Logic 22, 247–256Google Scholar
  18. Hitchcock David, Peter McBurney and S. Parsons: 2001, ‘A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues’, in H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair and R. H. Johnson (eds.), Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study f Argumentation (OSSA 2001), compact disk. Also available on Peter McBurney’s web page at the University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Science: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/Google Scholar
  19. Horty John, and Nuel D. Belnap: 1995, ‘The Deliberative Stit: A Study of Action, Omission, Ability and Obligation’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, 583–644.Google Scholar
  20. Paglieri Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi: 2005, ‘Arguments as Belief Structures’, in David Hitchcock (ed.), The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University 18–21 May, 2005, Hamilton, Ontario pp. 356–367.Google Scholar
  21. Pereleman Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  22. Pollock, John L.: 1995, Cognitive Carpentry, Cambridge, Mass., The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakken Henry, Chris Reed and Douglas Walton: 2005, ‘Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 6–11, 2005, Bologna, Italy, New York, The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), pp. 115–124.Google Scholar
  24. Reed Chris, and Glenn Rowe: 2005, Araucaria, Version 3. Available free at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/.Google Scholar
  25. Reed Chris, and Timothy J. Norman: 2003, Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, Kluwer Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Reiter Raymond (1980) ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Searle John R. (2001) Rationality in Action. The MIT Press Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  28. Segerberg Krister (1984) ‘Towards an Exact Philosophy of Action’. Topoi 3, 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Toulmin Stephen (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Verheij Bart (2003) ‘Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic’. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verheij Bart (2005) Virtual Arguments. The Hague, Asser PressGoogle Scholar
  32. von Wright Georg H. (1963a) The Varieties of Goodness. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. von Wright Georg H. (1963b) Norm and Action. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. von Wright Georg H. (1972) ‘On So-Called Practical Inference’. Acta Sociologica 15: 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walton Douglas (1989) A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton Douglas (1990). Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Rowman & Littlefield Savage, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  37. Walton Douglas (1995) A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Walton Douglas (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Studies in Argumentation Series). Lawrence Erllaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar
  39. Walton Douglas (1997) ‘Actions and Inconsistency: the Closure Problem of Practical Reasoning’. In: Ghita Holmstrom-Hintikka, Raimo Tuomela (eds) Contemporary Action Theory, Vol. 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 159–175Google Scholar
  40. Walton Douglas (2004) Abductive Reasoning. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  41. Walton Douglas, David Godden (2005) ‘The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes’. In: David Hitchcock (eds) The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University 18–21 May, 2005. Hamilton, Ontario, pp. 476–484Google Scholar
  42. Wooldridge Michael (2000) Reasoning about Rational Agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  43. Wooldridge Michael (2002) MultiAgent Systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegWinnipeg, ManitobaCanada

Personalised recommendations