Syncretic Argumentation by Means of Lattice Homomorphism

  • Taichi Hasegawa
  • Safia Abbas
  • Hajime Sawamura
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5925)


In this paper, we attempt to formalize the syncretic argumentation, taking into account the Golden Rule in the ethics of reciprocity and Confucius’ Golden Rule. After outlining the underlying argumentation framework, Logic of Multiple-valued Argumentation (LMA), we describe the syncretic argumentation framework by introducing the lattice homomorphism on truth-values (epistemic states) of propositions, and the new definitions of arguments justified under syncretized knowledge base. We also argue about its implications and new directions to further work.


Complete Lattice Epistemic State Golden Rule Argumentation Framework Lattice Homomorphism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logics programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takahashi, T., Sawamura, H.: A logic of multiple-valued argumentation. In: Proceedings of the third international joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 800–807. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32, 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G., Alsinet, T., Godo, L.: A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation with vague knowledge. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gensler, H.J.: Formal Ethics. Routledge, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Confucius: The Analects, translated by D. Hinton. Counterpoint (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kifer, M., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. J. of Logic Programming 12, 335–397 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davey, B.A., Priestley, H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sawamura, H., Mares, E.: How agents should exploit tetralemma with an eastern mind in argumentation. In: Barley, M., Kasabov, N. (eds.) PRIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3371, pp. 259–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wikipedia: [heliocentrism],
  12. 12.
    Wikipedia: [geocentric model],
  13. 13.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 171, 730–753 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fukumoto, T., Kuribara, S., Sawamura, H.: An integrated argumentation environment for arguing agents. In: Nguyen, N.T., Jo, G.-S., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4953, pp. 351–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taichi Hasegawa
    • 1
  • Safia Abbas
    • 1
  • Hajime Sawamura
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Science and TechnologyNiigata UniversityNiigataJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Science and TechnologyNiigata UniversityNiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations