AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 509–530 | Cite as

An argumentation model of forensic evidence in fine art attribution

25TH ANNIVERSARY VOLUME A FAUSTIAN EXCHANGE: WHAT IS TO BE HUMAN IN THE ERA OF UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGY?

Abstract

In this paper, a case study is conducted to test the capability of the Carneades Argumentation System to model the argumentation in a case where forensic evidence was collected in an investigation triggered by a conflict among art experts on the attribution of a painting to Leonardo da Vinci. A claim that a portrait of a young woman in a Renaissance dress could be attributed to da Vinci was initially dismissed by art experts. Forensic investigations were carried out, and evidence was collected by art history experts and scientific experts. The expert opinions were initially in conflict, but new evidence shifted the burden of proof onto the side of the skeptics. This paper presents an analysis of the structure of the interlocking argumentation in the case using argument mapping tools to track the accumulation of evidence pro and con.

Keywords

The Carneades Argumentation System Argument from expert opinion Fraudulent art Evidential reasoning Inquiry dialogue Burden of proof Leonardo da Vinci 

References

  1. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150:97–143CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bench-Capon TJM, Doutre S, Dunne PE (2007) Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artif Intell 171(1):42–71Google Scholar
  3. Dung P (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Foris, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gordon TF (2005) A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds), Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law. IAAIL Workshop Series, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 53–64Google Scholar
  6. Gordon TF (2010) The Carneades Argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. College Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Gordon TF (2011) Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with Carneades. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL-2011: no editor given). ACM Press, New York, pp 50–55Google Scholar
  8. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades Argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207Google Scholar
  9. Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875–896MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Grennan W (1997) Informal logic. McGill-Queen’s University Press, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamblin CL (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hastings AC (1963) A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  14. Josephson JR, Josephson S (1994) Abductive inference: computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kemp M, Cotte P (2010) La Bella Principessa. Hodder and Stoughton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kienpointner M (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Fromman-Holzboog, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  17. Kienpointner M (1997) On the art of finding arguments: what ancient and modern masters of invention have to tell us about the Ars Inveniendi. Argumentation 11:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253Google Scholar
  19. Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1):43–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shum SJB, MacLean A, Bellotti VME, Hammond NV (1997) Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human Computer Interaction 12(3):267–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tindale CW (1990) Audiences and acceptable premises: epistemic and logical conditions. In: van Eemeren F et al (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation. SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp 288–295Google Scholar
  22. Van Gijzel B, Prakken H (2011) Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2011), Barcelona (Spain), pp 1113–1119Google Scholar
  23. Walton D (2004) Abductive reasoning. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  24. Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds), Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL Workshop Series, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103–111Google Scholar
  25. Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  26. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR)University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations