Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:59:15.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

CHRIS REED ,
DOUGLAS WALTON  and
FABRIZIO MACAGNO
CHRIS REED
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK; e-mail: [email protected]
DOUGLAS WALTON
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]
FABRIZIO MACAGNO
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Largo A. Gemelli, 1 - 20123 Milano, Italy; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 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.

Type
Original Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 87 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aleven, K. D., 2003 Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artificial Intelligence 150, 183–237.Google Scholar
Anderson, Terence and William L, Twining, 1998 Analysis of Evidence: How to Do Things with Facts Based on Wigmore’s ‘Science of Judicial Proof’. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Beardsley, Monroe C, 1950 Practical Logic. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carbogim, Daniela, Robertson, David and Lee, John, 2000 Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review 15(2), 119–149.Google Scholar
Carenini, Giuseppe and Moore, Johanna, 2001 An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001) San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1307–1314. www.cs.ubc.ca/%7Ecarenini/PAPERS/ijcai01-cr.pdf.Google Scholar
Chesñevar, Carlos, Maguitman, Gabriela and Loui, Ron, 2000 Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383.Google Scholar
Conklin, Jeff, 2003 Dialog mapping: reflections on an industrial strength case study. In Kirschner et al., 2003, pp. 117–136.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Jim, Fox, John, Reed, Chris, Scaltsas, Theodore and Stumpf, Simone, 2003 Computational models of rhetorical argument. In Reed, Chris and Norman, Timothy (eds.), Argumentation Machines. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 175–210.Google Scholar
Dung, P, 1995 On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, Maurice, 1980 Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Freeman, James B, 1991 Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. Foris: Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Thomas F and Karacapilidis, N, 1997 The zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 10–18.Google Scholar
Gordon, Thomas F, Karacapilidis, N, Voss, H and Zauke, A, 1997a Computer-mediated spatial planning. In Timmermans, H (ed.) Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning, h.p.: E. and F. N. Spon. London, 299–309.Google Scholar
Grasso, Floriana, Cawsey, Alison and Jones, Ray, 2000 Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53(6), 1077–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grennan, Wayne, 1997 Informal Logic. Buffalo: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Maralee, Using argument diagramming software in the classroom Teaching Philosophy, 28(2), 2005, www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/ArgumentDiagramsInClassroom.pdf.Google Scholar
Hirsch, L, Saeedi, M, Cornillon, J and Litosseliti, L, 2004 A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Robert E, 2003 Infrastructure for navigating interdisciplinary debates: critical decisions for representing argumentation. In Kirschner et al., 2003, pp. 165–184.Google Scholar
Hurley, Patrick, 2003 A Concise Introduction to Logic, 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kirschner, Paul A, Buckingham Shum, Simon J and Carr, Chad S (eds.), 2003 Visualizing Argumentation. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Krause, P, Ambler, S, Elvang-Goransson, M and Fox, J, 1995 A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11, 113–131.Google Scholar
Palmer, Andrew, 2003 Proof and the Preparation of Trials. Sydney, Australia: Lawbook Co.Google Scholar
Paolucci, Massimo, Suthers, Dan and Weiner, Arlene, 1995 Belvedere: stimulating students' critical discussion. In Proceedings CHI'95: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, ACM Press, pp. 123–124.Google Scholar
Parsons, Simon and Jennings, Nicholas, 1996 Negotiation through argumentation: a preliminary report. In Proceedings of ICMAS 96, pp. 267–274. eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2149/01/ICMAS96.pdf.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea, 1984 Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Pollock, John, 1995 Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, John, 2002 Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification II, greatly revised and expanded version of Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282. Available from oscarhome.soc-sci.arizona.edu/ftp/PAPERS/Degrees.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Chris and Norman, Timothy J (eds.), 2003 Argumentation Machines. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Reed, Chris and Rowe, Glenn, 2004 Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14(3–4), 961–980.Google Scholar
Rolf, Bertil and Magnusson, C, 2003 Developing the art of argumentation: a software approach In Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argument (ISSA) Sicsat, 919–925.Google Scholar
Schum, David, 1994 Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Scriven, Michael, 1976 Reasoning, Point Reyes: Edgepress.Google Scholar
Selvin, Albert M, 2003 Fostering collective intelligence: helping groups use visualized argumentation. In Kirschner et al., 2003, pp. 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillers, Peter, 2003 Probability and Uncertainty in Law. International Summer School Lectures, Konstanz. Available from tillers.net/uncertainlaw/uncertain.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tillers, Peter, 2004 Picturing Inference, An Essay in Honor of Professor Lothar Philipps. Available from tillers.net/pictures/picturing.htmlGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, 1958 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard, Riecke and Allan, Janik, 1984 An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, Tim, 2001 The reason! project. The Skeptic 21(2), 9–12.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, Tim and Rizzo, Alberto, 2001 Reason!able across the curriculum. In 2001: Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of ICT in Education Victoria. www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/Reason/papers/CEGV2001.pdf.Google Scholar
Verheij, Bart, 2005 Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: T.M.C.Asser Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, 1996 Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Henry, Prakken and Chris, Reed, 2003 Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, 2003. New York: ACM Press, pp. 32–41.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard, 1836 Elements of Logic. 6th ed. London: B. Fellowes.Google Scholar
Wigmore, John Henry, 1913 The Principles of Judicial Proof. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2nd ed. 1931.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall, 1921 Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 557–585.Google Scholar