This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, it is studied how Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars can be exploited by modern visualisation software for argumentation, and how a formal account of the method can be given in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
|Title of host publication||Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law|
|Subtitle of host publication||9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '03; Scotland; United Kingdom; 24 June 2003 through 28 June 2003|
|Place of Publication||New York|
|Publisher||Association for Computing Machinery|
|Number of pages||10|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jan 2003|
Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '03; Scotland; United Kingdom; 24 June 2003 through 28 June 2003 (pp. 32-41). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047788.1047794