scholarly journals Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-114
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Dialectical Structure ◽  
Ad Hominem ◽  
Ethical Character

Abstract This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.

scholarly journals Virtues, Evidence, and Ad Hominem Arguments

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bondy
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Character Trait ◽  
Theoretic Approach ◽  
Ad Hominem ◽  
Carry Over ◽  
Virtue Argumentation

Argumentation theorists are beginning to think of ad hominem arguments as generally legitimate. Virtue argumentation theorists argue that a character trait approach to argument appraisal can explain why ad hominems would are legitimate, when they are legitimate. But I argue that we do not need to appeal to virtue argumentation theory to explain the legitimacy of ad hominem arguments; a more straightforward evidentialist approach to argument appraisal is also committed to their legitimacy. I also argue that virtue argumentation theory faces some important problems, and that whereas the virtue-theoretic approach in epistemology is (arguably) well-motivated, that motivation does not carry over to virtue argumentation theory.

Abduction and comparative weighing of explanatory hypotheses: an argumentative approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Olmos
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Abductive Reasoning ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Explanatory Hypothesis

Abstract This paper makes use of the concepts and theoretical framework developed within the field of Argumentation Theory to account for the structure and characteristics of abduction and of the comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis. It elaborates an analysis of abduction based on its consideration as a meta-explanatory argumentation scheme while elucidating its relations with abductive reasoning and inference. The conceptualization of comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis as complex and varied argumentative structures is presented as an alternative to the idea of providing a formally rigid and supposedly universal account of ‘inference to the best explanation’.

scholarly journals DISPUTool -- A tool for the Argumentative Analysis of Political Debates

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shohreh Haddadan ◽  
Elena Cabrio ◽  
Serena Villata
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Presidential Campaigns ◽  
Political Candidates ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Textual Data ◽  
Political Speeches

Political debates are the means used by political candidates to put forward and justify their positions in front of the electors with respect to the issues at stake. Argument mining is a novel research area in Artificial Intelligence, aiming at analyzing discourse on the pragmatics level and applying a certain argumentation theory to model and automatically analyze textual data. In this paper, we present DISPUTool, a tool designed to ease the work of historians and social science scholars in analyzing the argumentative content of political speeches. More precisely, DISPUTool allows to explore and automatically identify argumentative components over the 39 political debates from the last 50 years of US presidential campaigns (1960-2016). 

scholarly journals An argumentative approach on abduction and on the weighing of explanatory hypotheses

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Olmos
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Abductive Reasoning ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Explanatory Hypothesis

This paper makes use of the concepts and theoretical framework developed within the field of Argumentation Theory to account for the structure and characteristics of abduction and of the comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis. It elaborates an analysis of abduction based on its consideration as a meta-explanatory argumentation scheme while elucidating its relations with abductive reasoning and inference. The conceptualization of comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis as complex and varied argumentative structures is presented as an alternative to the idea of “inference to the best explanation”.

scholarly journals Logics of Preference when There Is No Best

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Grossi ◽  
Wiebe van der Hoek ◽  
Louwe B. Kuijer
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Knowledge Representation ◽  
Social Choice ◽  
General Class ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Social Choice Theory ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Logical Analysis ◽  
Logical Foundations ◽  
Preference Structures

Well-behaved preferences (e.g., total pre-orders) are a cornerstone of several areas in artificial intelligence, from knowledge representation, where preferences typically encode likelihood comparisons, to both game and decision theories, where preferences typically encode utility comparisons. Yet weaker (e.g., cyclical) structures of comparison have proven important in a number of areas, from argumentation theory to tournaments and social choice theory. In this paper we provide logical foundations for reasoning about this type of preference structures where no obvious best elements may exist. Concretely, we compare and axiomatize a number of ways in which the concepts of maximality and optimality can be generalized in this general class of preferences. We thereby expand the scope of the long-standing tradition of the logical analysis of preference.

Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRIS REED ◽  
DOUGLAS WALTON ◽  
FABRIZIO MACAGNO
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Informal Logic ◽  
History Of ◽  
Argument Diagram ◽  
Evidence Law

AbstractIn this paper, we present a survey of the development of the technique of argument diagramming covering not only the fields in which it originated — informal logic, argumentation theory, evidence law and legal reasoning — but also more recent work in applying and developing it in computer science and artificial intelligence (AI). Beginning with a simple example of an everyday argument, we present an analysis of it visualized as an argument diagram constructed using a software tool. In the context of a brief history of the development of diagramming, it is then shown how argument diagrams have been used to analyse and work with argumentation in law, philosophy and AI.

Abduction and comparative weighing of explanatory hypotheses: an argumentative approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Olmos
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Abductive Reasoning ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Explanatory Hypothesis

Abstract This paper makes use of the concepts and theoretical framework developed within the field of Argumentation Theory to account for the structure and characteristics of abduction and of the comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis. It elaborates an analysis of abduction based on its consideration as a meta-explanatory argumentation scheme while elucidating its relations with abductive reasoning and inference. The conceptualization of comparative processes of weighing explanatory hypothesis as complex and varied argumentative structures is presented as an alternative to the idea of providing a formally rigid and supposedly universal account of ‘inference to the best explanation’.

scholarly journals Arguing from Definition to Verbal Classification: The Case of Redefining 'Planet' to Exclude Pluto

2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Scientific Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Argumentation Scheme ◽  
Rational Argumentation

The recent redefinition of 'planet' that excludes Pluto as a planet led to controversy that provides a case study of how competing scientific definitions can be supported by characteristic types of evidence. An argumentation scheme from Hastings is used to analyze argument from verbal classification as a form of inference used in rational argumentation. The Toulmin-style format is compared to more recently developed ways of modeling such cases that stem from advances in argumentation technology in artificial intelligence. Usingthese tools, it is shown how argumentation schemes, in particularargument from verbal classification and argument from definition to verbal classification, apply to cases of scientific argumentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document