Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence

Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    47 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationProceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
    Subtitle of host publication9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '03; Scotland; United Kingdom; 24 June 2003 through 28 June 2003
    Place of PublicationNew York
    PublisherAssociation for Computing Machinery
    Pages32-41
    Number of pages10
    ISBN (Print)9781581137477
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2003

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    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