Advertisement

Persuasive Argumentation and Epistemic Attitudes

  • Carlo Proietti
  • Antonio Yuste-GinelEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12005)

Abstract

This paper studies the relation between persuasive argumentation and the speaker’s epistemic attitude. Dung-style abstract argumentation and dynamic epistemic logic provide the necessary tools to characterize the notion of persuasion. Within abstract argumentation, persuasive argumentation has been previously studied from a game-theoretic perspective. These approaches are blind to the fact that, in real-life situations, the epistemic attitude of the speaker determines which set of arguments will be disclosed by her in the context of a persuasive dialogue. This work is a first step to fill this gap. For this purpose we extend one of the logics of Schwarzentruber et al. with dynamic operators, designed to capture communicative phenomena. A complete axiomatization for the new logic via reduction axioms is provided. Within the new framework, a distinction between actual persuasion and persuasion from the speaker’s perspective is made. Finally, we explore the relationship between the two notions.

Keywords

Argumentation frameworks Dynamic Epistemic Logic Persuasion and argument labellings 

References

  1. 1.
    Beirlaen, M., Heyninck, J., Pardo, P., Straßer, C.: Argument strength in formal argumentation. IfCoLog J. Log. Their Appl. 5(3), 629–675 (2018)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Benthem, J., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: The dynamics of awareness. Synthese 177(1), 5–27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackburn, P., De Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M., Sakama, C.: On the issue of argumentation and informedness. In: Otake, M., Kurahashi, S., Ota, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2015. LNCS, vol. 10091, pp. 317–330. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M.W., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van Der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer, Dordrecht (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5839-4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doutre, S., Herzig, A., Perrussel, L.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In: Baral, C., De Giacomo, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) Fourteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doutre, S., Maffre, F., McBurney, P.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation: adding and removing arguments. In: Benferhat, S., Tabia, K., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10351, pp. 295–305. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60045-1_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artif. Intell. 34(1), 39–76 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groarke, L.: Informal logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2017 edn. (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grossi, D., van der Hoek, W.: Justified beliefs by justified arguments. In: Baral, C., De Giacomo, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) Fourteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, R.H.: Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Routledge, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kooi, B.: Expressivity and completeness for public update logics via reduction axioms. J. Appl. Non-Classical Log. 17(2), 231–253 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Proietti, C.: The dynamics of group polarization. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds.) LORI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10455, pp. 195–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 321–339. Springer, Boston (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sakama, C.: Dishonest arguments in debate games. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Computational Models of Argument, pp. 177–184. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwarzentruber, F., Vesic, S., Rienstra, T.: Building an epistemic logic for argumentation. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7519, pp. 359–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shi, C., Smets, S., Velázquez-Quesada, F.: Argument-based belief in topological structures. In: Lang, J. (ed.) Proceedings TARK 2017, vol. 251. Open Publishing Association (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shi, C., Smets, S., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: Beliefs supported by binary arguments. J. Appl. Non-Classical Log. 28(2–3), 165–188 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Benthem, J., Van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Inf. Comput. 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.ILLC, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of MálagaMálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations