Presentation of Arguments and Counterarguments for Tentative Scientific Knowledge

  • Anthony Hunter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


A key goal for a scientist is to find evidence to argue for or against universal statements (in effect first-order formulae) about the world. Building logic-based tools to support this activity could be potentially very useful for scientists to analyse new scientific findings using experimental results and established scientific knowledge. In effect, these logical tools would help scientists to present arguments and counterarguments for tentative scientific knowledge, and to share and discuss these with other scientists. To address this, in this paper, we explain how tentative and established scientific knowledge can be represented in logic, we show how first-order argumentation can be used for analysing scientific knowledge, and we extend our framework for evaluating the degree of conflict arising in scientific knowledge. We also discuss the applicability of recent developments in optimizing the impact and believability of arguments for the intended audience.


Classical Logic Universal Statement Argumentation Framework Intended Audience Constant Symbol 
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.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Practical first-order argumentation. In: Proc. of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), pp. 590–595. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (in preparation, 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Dix, J., Konolige, K.: Non-monotonic Reasoning: An Overview. CLSI Publications (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buckingham Shum, S.: Modelling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues. International Journal Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Computational Modelling of Naturalistic Argumentation (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesnevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32, 337–383 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp. 3–7. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence (in press, 2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garca, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 269–274. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, A.: Towards higher impact argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 275–280. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loui, R.: A mathematical comment on the fundamental difference between legal theory formation and scientific theory formation. In: Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Scientific Reasoning and Applications (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teufel, S., Moens, M.: Summarizing scientific articles – experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Computational Linguistics 28(4) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations