Recent concerns with the evaluation of argumentation in informal logic and speech communication center around nondemonstrative arguments that lead to tentative or defeasible conclusions based on a balance of considerations. Such arguments do not appear to have structures of the kind traditionally identified with deductive and inductive reasoning, but are extremely common and are often called "plausible" or "presumptive," meaning that they are only provisionally acceptable even when they are correct. How is one to judge, by some clearly defined standard, whether such arguments are correct or not in a given instance? The answer lies in what are called argumentation schemes -- forms of argument (structures of inference) that enable one to identify and evaluate common types of argumentation in everyday discourse. This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each. These two elements -- the scheme and the questions -- are then used to evaluate a given argument in a particular case in relation to a context of dialogue in which the argument occurred. In recent writings on argumentation, there is a good deal of stress placed on how important argumentation schemes are in any attempt to evaluate common arguments in everyday reasoning as correct or fallacious, acceptable or questionable. However, the problem is that the literature thus far has not produced a precise and user-friendly enough analysis of the structures of the argumentation schemes themselves, nor have any of the documented accounts been as helpful, accessible, or systematic as they could be, especially in relation to presumptive reasoning. This book solves the problem by presenting the most common presumptive schemes in an orderly and clear way that makes them explicit and useful as precisely defined structures. As such, it will be an indispensable tool for researchers, students, and teachers in the areas of critical thinking, argumentation, speech communication, informal logic, and discourse analysis.
This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined in the last chapter. It provides a systematic and comprehensive account, with notation suitable for computational applications that increasingly make use of argumentation schemes.
In the late 1990s, AI witnessed an increasing use of the term 'argumentation' within its bounds: in natural language processing, in user interface design, in logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, in Al's interface with the legal community, and in the newly emerging field of multi-agent systems. It seemed to me that many of these uses of argumentation were inspired by (of ten inspired) guesswork, and that a great majority of the AI community were unaware that there was a maturing, rich field of research in Argumentation Theory (and Critical Thinking and Informal Logic) that had been steadily re building a scholarly approach to the area over the previous twenty years or so. Argumentation Theory, on its side; was developing theories and approaches that many in the field felt could have a role more widely in research and soci ety, but were for the most part unaware that AI was one of the best candidates for such application.
Use of argumentation methods applied to legal reasoning is a relatively new field of study. The book provides a survey of the leading problems, and outlines how future research using argumentation-based methods show great promise of leading to useful solutions. The problems studied include not only these of argument evaluation and argument invention, but also analysis of specific kinds of evidence commonly used in law, like witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence and character evidence. New tools for analyzing these kinds of evidence are introduced.
Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory is a collection of essays that discuss a series of important issues in the study of argumentation. The essays describe the concepts that are crucial to argumentational research and the various ways these concepts have been approached. The essays explore such issues as points of view, unexpressed premises, argument schemes, argumentation structures, fallacies, argument interpretation and reconstruction, and argumentation in law. Each of the essays provides interested readers with an overview of the literature that can serve as a point of departure for further study.
The theory of argumentation is a rich, interdisciplinary area of research involving philosophy, communications studies, linguistics, psychology, and logics. Its techniques have found a wide range of applications in both theoretical and practical branches of artificial intelligence and computer science. Multi-agent systems theory has picked up argumentation-inspired approaches and specifically argumentation-theoretic results from many different areas. Researchers in argumentation and multi-agent systems are currently enjoying a unique opportunity to integrate the various understandings of argument into a coherent and core part of the functioning of autonomous computational systems. This book originates from the First International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS 2004, held in New York, NY, USA in July 2004. Besides 12 selected revised full papers taken from the workshop, 4 additional papers by key people in the area round off overall coverage of the relevant topics. The papers address the following main topics: foundations of dialogues, belief revision, persuasion and deliberation, negotiation, and strategic issues.
This book constitutes the proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, CLIMA XIV, held in Corunna, Spain, in September 2013. The 23 regular papers were carefully reviewed and selected from 44 submissions and presented with four invited talks. The purpose of the CLIMA workshops is to provide a forum for discussing techniques, based on computational logic, for representing, programming and reasoning about agents and multi-agent systems in a formal way. This edition will feature two special sessions: Argumentation Technologies and Norms and Normative Multi-Agent Systems.
This book explains how burden of proof and presumption work as powerful devices in argumentation, based on studying many clearly explained legal and non-legal examples. It shows how the latest argumentation-based methods of artificial intelligence can be applied to these examples to help us understand how burdens of proof and presumptions work as devices of legal reasoning. It also shows the reader how to deal with presumptions and burdens of proof in everyday life, as they shift from one side to the other, sometimes confusingly, during a sequence of argumentation.
Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation presents the basic tools for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of common arguments for beginners. The book teaches by using examples of arguments in dialogues, both in the text itself and in the exercises. Examples of controversial legal, political, and ethical arguments are analyzed. Illustrating the most common kinds of arguments, the book also explains how to analyze and evaluate each kind by critical questioning. Douglas Walton shows how arguments can be reasonable under the right dialogue conditions by using critical questions to evaluate them.