Abstract
This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge (along with other schemes of lesser prominence) to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme for argument from fairness is shown to be based on a special principle in Perelman’s theory of justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Araucaria can be downloaded from http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/doku.php.
Carneades can be downloaded from http://carneades.github.com/.
References
Atkinson K (2012) Introduction to special issue on Modelling Popov v. Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(10):1–14
Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Log Comput 13(3):429–448
Bench-Capon TJM (2012) Representing Popov v. Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 20:15–35
Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H (2010) Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif Intell Law 18:153–174
Collins A, Warnock EH, Aiello N, Miller M (1975) Reasoning from incomplete knowledge. In: Bobrow D, Collins A (eds) Representation and understanding: studies in cognitive science. Academic Press, New York, pp 383–415
Gordon TF (2010) The Carneades argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. College Publications, London
Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades argumentation framework: using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational Models of Argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207
Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260
Gordon TF, Walton D (2012) A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(1):37–56
Hansen H, Walton D (2013) Kinds of arguments used in the Ontario Provincial election, 2011. Argum Context 2(2):226–258
Hastings AC (1963) A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Illinois. Ph.D. Dissertation
Helmholtz L (1983) Equitable division and the law of finders. Fordham Law Rev 52(3):313–328
Kienpointner M (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Fromman-Holzboog, Stuttgart
McCarthy KM (2002) Statement of decision. Superior Court of California, December 12, 2002, Case of Popov v. Hayahsi #4005545: http://www.findlaw.com
Perelman C (1980) Justice, law and argument. Reidel, Dordrecht
Perelman C (1982) The realm of rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Hendrik Kaptein, Henry Prakken, Bart Verheij (eds) Legal evidence and Burden of proof. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253
Prakken H, Sartor G (2011) On Modelling Burdens and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation. In: Atkinson KD (ed) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2011: the twenty-fourth annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 83–92
Reiter R (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artif Intell 13:81–132
Verheij B (2001) Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes. In: The 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law: proceedings of the conference, New York Association for Computing Machinery, pp 225–236. http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm
Walton D (1996a) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Walton D (1996b) Arguments from ignorance. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Walton D (2002) Are some Modus Ponens arguments deductively invalid? Inf Log 22:19–46
Walton D (2010) Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Inf Log 30(2):159–184
Walton D (2014) Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (to appear)
Walton D, Hansen H (2012) Arguments from fairness and misplaced priorities in political argumentation. J Polit Law 6(3):78–94
Walton D, Hansen HV (2013) Arguments from fairness and misplaced priorities in political argumentation. J Polit Law 6(3):78–94
Walton D, Reed C (2003) Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In: van Eemeren FH et al (eds) Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 195–211
Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of Popov v. Hayahsi. In: JURIX 2007: the twentieth international conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 151–160
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for an Insight Grant that supported the work in this paper, and to thank Tom Gordon for many helpful comments and criticisms that enabled many corrections and improvements to be made.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, D. Baseballs and arguments from fairness. Artif Intell Law 22, 423–449 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9151-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9151-1