Abstract
This chapter presents a theory of explanation by building a dialectical system that has speech act rules that define the kinds of moves allowed, such as putting forward an argument, requesting an explanation and offering an explanation. Pre and post-condition rules for the speech acts determine when a particular speech act can be put forward as a move in the dialogue, and what type of move or moves must follow it. This chapter offers a dialogue structure with three stages, an opening stage, an explanation stage and a closing stage, and shows how an explanation dialogue can shift to other types of dialogue known in argumentation studies such as persuasion dialogue and deliberation dialogue. Such shifts can go from argumentation to explanation and back again. The problem of evaluating explanations is solved by extending the hybrid system of (Bex, Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011) which combines explanations and arguments to include a method of testing stories called examination dialogue. In this type of dialogue an explanation can be probed and tested by arguments. The result is a method of evaluating explanations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Assertions include only statements (propositions), and do not include promises, commands, and so forth.
References
Aristotle. 1928. On sophistical refutations, Loeb classical library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Atkinson, K., T.J.M. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2): 157–206.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. 2007. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. 2008. Asking the right question: Forcing commitment in examination dialogues. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, ed. P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, 49–60. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Berland, L.K., and B.J. Reiser. 2008. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education 93(1): 26–55.
Bex, F.J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bex, F.J., and D. Walton. 2012. Burdens and standards of proof for inference to the best explanation: Three case studies. Law, Probability and Risk 11(2–3): 113–133.
Bratman, M., D. Israel, and M. Pollack. 1988. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4(3): 349–355.
Brewer, S. 1996. Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109: 923–1038.
Cawsey, A. 1992. Explanation and interaction: The computer generation of explanatory dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collingwood, R.G. 1946. The idea of history. Oxford: Clarendon.
Dray, W. 1964. Philosophy of history. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Dray, W. 1995. History as re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood’s idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunne, P.E., S. Doutre, and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. 2005. Discovering Inconsistency through examination dialogues. In Proceedings IJCAI-05, 1560–1561. Edinburgh.
Finocchiaro, M. 1980. Scientific discoveries as growth of understanding: The case of Newton’s gravitation. In Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality, ed. Thomas Nickles, 235–255. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Friedman, M. 1974. Explanation and scientific understanding. The Journal of Philosophy LXXI: 5–19.
Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In Argumentation and artificial intelligence, ed. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.
Guthrie, W.K.C. 1981. A history of Greek philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Kass. A., and D. Leake. 1987. Types of explanations, Technical report ADA183253. U. S. Department of Commerce, Alexandria.
Leake, D.B. 1992. Evaluating explanations: A content theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Moore, J.D. 1995. Participating in explanatory dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Moulin, B., H. Irandoust, M. Belanger, and G. Desbordes. 2002. Explanation and argumentation capabilities. Artificial Intelligence Review 17(3): 169–222.
Parsons, S., and N.R. Jennings. 1997. Negotiation through argumentation: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the second international conference on multi-agents systems, ed. Mario Tokoro, 267–274. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
Pera, M. 1994. The discoveries of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.
Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2): 163–188.
Reed, C. 2006. Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(1): 22–31.
Sandoval, W., and B.J. Reiser. 2004. Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education 88(1): 345–372.
Schank, R.C. 1986. Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schank, R.C., and C.K. Riesback. 1981. Inside computer understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schank, R.C., A. Kass, and C.K. Riesbeck. 1994. Inside case-based explanation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schlangen, D. 2004. Causes and strategies for requesting clarification in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 5th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, ed. Michael Strube and Candy Sidner, 136–143. East Stoudsburg: XXXX. Available at: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/hlt-naacl2004/sigdial04/pdf/schlangen.pdf.
Scriven, M. 1972. The concept of comprehension: From semantics to software. In Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge, ed. J.B. Carroll and R.O. Freedle, 31–39. Washington: W. H. Winston & Sons.
Scriven, M. 2002. The limits of explication. Argumentation 16(1): 47–57.
Snoeck Henkemans, F. 1997. Analyzing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Trout, J.D. 2002. Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science 69(2): 212–233.
Unsworth, L. 2001. Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school texts. International Journal of Science Education 23(6): 585–609.
Verheij, B. 2003. DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 319–346.
von Wright, G.H. 1971. Explanation and understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walton, D. 1989. Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Walton, D. 2003. The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 35(12): 1771–1802.
Walton, D. 2004. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. 2006. Character evidence: An abductive theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Walton, D. 2007a. Dialogical models of explanation. In Explanation-aware computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop, Technical report WS-07-06, 1–9. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
Walton, D. 2007b. Clarification dialogue. Studies in Communication Sciences 7: 165–197.
Walton, D. 2011. Teleological argumentation to and from motives. Law, Probability and Risk 10(3): 203–223.
Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., C.W. Tindale, and T.F. Gordon. 2014. Applying recent argumentation methods to some ancient examples of plausible reasoning. Argumentation 28(1): 85–119.
Wells, S., and C. Reed. 2012. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic 10(4): 309–329.
Wigmore, J.H. 1935. A student’s textbook of the law of evidence. Chicago: The Foundation Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (2016). A Dialogue System for Evaluating Explanations. In: Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19625-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19626-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)