Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proof Burdens and Standards

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence

This chapter explains the role of proof burdens and standards in argumentation, illustrates them using legal procedures, and surveys the history of research on computational models of these concepts. It also presents an original computational model which aims to integrate the features of these prior systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. T. Anderson, D. Schum, and W. Twining. Analysis of Evidence. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Capon. Argumentation and standards of proof. In ICAIL ’07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 107–116, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. C. Beardsley. Practical Logic. Prentice Hall, New York, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429–448, 2003.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. T. J. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P. E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(42-71), 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation MIT Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Bing. Uncertainty, decisions and information systems. In C. Ciampi, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Information Systems. North-Holland, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. C. Black. Black’s Law Dictionary. West Publishing Co., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93(1-2):63–101, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–357, 1995.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. J. B. Freeman. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. Freeman and A. M. Farley. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):163–197, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. T. F. Gordon. Some problems with Prolog as a knowledge representation language for legal expert systems. In C. Arnold, editor, Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology, pages 52–67. Leicester Polytechnic Press, Leicester, England, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. T. F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game; An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Springer, New York, 1995. Book version of 1993 Ph.D. Thesis; University of Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  15. T. F. Gordon. Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4):109–117, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. T. F. Gordon. Hybrid reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 08), pages 16–25, Patras, Greece, July 2008. The 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  17. T. F. Gordon and N. Karacapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. InProceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 10–18, Melbourne, Australia, 1997. ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-11):875–896, 2007.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. T. F. Gordon and D. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework — using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. E. Dunne and T. J. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 195–207, Amsterdam, September 2006. IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Hage. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):199–273, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. H. L. A. Hart. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  22. W. Kunz and H. W. Rittel. Issues as elements of information systems. Technical report, Institut für Grundlagen der Planung, Universität Stuttgart, 1970. also: Center for Planning and Development Research, Institute of Urban and Regional Development Research. Working Paper 131, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. Prakken. Modeling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48:253–271, 2001.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. H. Prakken. A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 85–94, New York, 2005. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Prakken. A formal model of adjudication. In S. Rahman, editor, Argumentation, Logic and Law. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 85–94, Bologna, 2005. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):331–368, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Presumptions and burden of proof. In T. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pages 21–30, Amsterdam, 2006. IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Formalizing arguments about the burden of persuasion. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 97–106, New York, 2007. Stanford University, ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, editors, Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, Applied Legal Philosophy Series. Ashgate Publishing, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Rawls. Outline of a decision procedure for ethics. Philosophical Review, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  32. N. Rescher. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  33. H. W. Rittel and M. M. Webber. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4:155–169, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. M. Rosenberg, J. B. Weinstein, H. Smit, and H. L. Korn. Elements of Civil Procedure. Foundation Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  35. G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and philosophy library, pages 119–157. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  36. K. Satoh, S. Tojo, and Y. Suzuki. Formalizing a switch of burden of proof by logic programming. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Juris-Informatics (JURISIN 2007), pages 76–85, Miyazaki, Japan, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. Walton. The new dialectic: A method of evaluating used for some purpose in a given case. ProtoSociology, 13:70–91, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  38. D. Walton. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We’d like to thank Trevor Bench-Capon and Henry Prakken for their helpful comments on various drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany

    Thomas F. Gordon

  2. University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas F. Gordon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2009 Springer-Verlag US

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Gordon, T.F., Walton, D. (2009). Proof Burdens and Standards. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_12

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_12

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

    • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98196-3

    • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-98197-0

    • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation