Abstract
Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Weights do not play a role in the legal arguments modeled below, since the proof standard used to resolve legal issues is dialectical validity, where weights are irrelevant.
Incidentally, this finding renders Judge McCarthy’s proposed rule about a qualified right to possession being sufficient to meet the ownership requirement of the conversion cause of action obiter dictum, not relevant for the decision of the case and thus not binding precedent. According to Black (1979), obiter dictum is “an observation or remark made by a judge when pronouncing an opinion on a case, concerning some rule, principal or application of law, or the solution of a question suggested by the case at bar, but not necessarily involved in the case or essential for its determination.”
Fresno Air Service v Wood (1965) 232 Cal. App. 2d 801, 806.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v San Francisco Bank. (1943) 58 Cal. App. 2d 528, 534.
Pierson v Post, 3 Caines R. (N.Y. 1805).
Young v Hutchinson, 6 Q.B. 606 (1844).
The screen shots have been edited slightly to overcome the lack of color printing, by adding check marks and Xs to accepted and rejected statements, respectively.
http://www.argunet.org/debates. See also (Betz 2009).
In Germany, for example, see KnowledgeTools (http://www.knowledgetools.de), FallSoft (http://www.fallsoft.de/) and Normfall (http://www.normfall.de).
References
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2004) Justifying practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA), pp 87–90, Valencia, ECAI
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 35–44, Bologna
Beardsley MC (1950) Practical logic. Prentice Hall, New York
Bench-Capon T (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448
Betz G (2009) Evaluating dialectical structures. J Philos Logic 38(3):283–312
Black HC (1979) Black’s law dictionary, 5th edn. West Publishing Co, St Paul, MN
Conklin J, Begeman M (1988) gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transact Office Inf Syst 6(4):303–331
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell, 77(2):321–357. ISSN 0004-3702
Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Gordon TF (2007) Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law Probab Risk 6(1–4):109–117
Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 10–18, ACM Press, Melbourne
Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) Pierson vs. post revisted—a reconstruction using the Carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds). Proceedings of the first international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 06), IOS Press, Liverpool
Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Hafner CD (ed). 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009), ACM Press, New York
Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–11):875–896
Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inf Syst 26(4):259–277
Mochales R, Leven A (2009) Creating an argumentation corpus: do theories apply to real arguments? A case study on the legal argumentation of the echr. In ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 21–30, ACM, New York, NY
Reed CA, Rowe GWA (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169
Selvin A, Shum SB, Maarten S et al (2001) Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events. In: Knowledge technologies 2001, Austin, TX
South M, Vreeswijk G, Fox J (2008) Dungine: a java dung reasoner. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp 360–368. IOS Press
Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments. TMC Asser Press, The Hague
Walton D (2005) Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer, Berlin
Walton D (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wigmore JH (1908) A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law: including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA
Witkin BE (1990) Summary of California law. Bancroft-Whitney Co, San Francisco
Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX, pp 151–160
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Stefan Ballnat and Matthias Grabmair for their work on implementing the Carneades inference engine and graphical user interface.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gordon, T.F., Walton, D. A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20, 37–56 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9120-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9120-0