Argumentation Methods for Artificial

Intelligence in Law
Author(s) Walton, Douglas

Imprint Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005

ISBN 9783540278818, 9783540251873

Permalink https://books.scholarsportal.info/en/read?id=/
ebooks/ebooks2/
springer/2011-04-28/1/3540278818

Pages 249 to 270

Downloaded from Scholars Portal Books on 2021-11-27

Téléchargé de Scholars Portal Books sur 2021-11-27
References

Achinstein Peter (1983) The Nature of Explanation, New York, Oxford University Press
Alberts Laurie (2001)‘Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation’, Villanova Environmental Law
Journal, 12: 33-63
Anderson Barrie, Anderson Dawn (1998) Manufacturing Guilt: Wrongful Convictions in
Canada, Halifax, Fernwood Publishing
Anderson Terence J (1999)‘On Generalizations I: A Preliminary Exploration’, South Texas
Law Review, 40: 455-481
Anderson Terence, Twining William (1991) Analysis of Evidence: How to do Things with
Facts Based on Wigmore’s Science of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little Brown & Co
Aristotle (1928) On Sophistical Refutations, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass ,
Harvard University Press
Aristotle (1937) Rhetoric, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University
Press
Aristotle (1938) Prior Analytics, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard Uni-
versity Press
Aristotle (1939) Topics, trans Forster ES, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass , Har-
vard University Press
Ashley Kevin D, Rissland Edwina L (2003) ‘Law, Learning and Representation’, Artificial
Intelligence, 150: 17-58
Ball Vaughn C (1980) ‘The Myth of Conditional Relevancy’, Georgia Law Review, 14,
435-469
Bench-Capon Trevor (1997) ‘Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law’, Artificial Intel-
ligence and Law, 5, 249-261
Bench-Capon Trevor (1998) ‘Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue
Game’, Jurix 1998: The Eleventh Conference, ed Jaap Hage et al , Nijmegen, Gerard
Noodt Instituut, 5-20
Bench-Capon Trevor (2002) ‘Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue between
Parties with Different Values’, Informal Logic, 22: 231-245 Version available (2003)
on the web page of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Liver-
pool: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~tbc/projects/ifl.pdf
Bench-Capon Trevor, Sartor Giovanni (2003) ‘A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases In-
corporating Theories and Values’, Artificial Intelligence, 150, 97-143
Bex Floris, Prakken Henry (2004) ‘Reinterpreting Arguments in Dialogue: An Application
to Evidential Reasoning’, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed Thomas F
Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 119-130
Bex Floris, Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2003) ‘Towards a Formal Ac-
count of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations’,
Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12, 125-165
Bibel Wolfgang (2004) ‘AI and the Conquest of Complexity in Law’, Invited Lecture, Sev-
enteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, available
on the web site of the JURIX 2004 Conference: http://gi-fg612.fokus.fhg.de/Jurix2004/
Boutlier C, Becher V (1995) ‘Abduction as Belief Revision’, Artificial Intelligence, 77, 43-
94
Branting L Carl (2000) Reasoning with Rules and Precedents: A Computational Model of
Legal Analysis, Dordrecht, Kluwer
250 References

Bromberger Sylvain (1966) ‘Why-Questions’, Mind and Cosmos, ed Robert G Colodny,

Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 86-111
Burke Michael (1985) ‘Unstated Premises’, Informal Logic, 7, 107-118
Burnyeat Myles F (1994) ‘Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion’, Aristotle’s
Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, ed David J Furley and Alexander Nehemas, Princeton,
N J , Princeton University Press, 3-55
Callen Craig R (2003) ‘Rationality and Relevancy: Conditional Relevancy and Constrained
Resources’, Michigan State University Law Review, 4, 1243-1303
Campbell Stephen K (1974) Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking, Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall
Carberry Sandra (1990) Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue, Cambridge,
Mass , MIT Press
Cawsey Alison (1992) Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explana-
tory Dialogue, Cambridge, Mass , The MIT Press
Chakrabarti Kisor Kumar (1995) Definition and Induction: A Historical and Comparative
Study, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press
Chandrasekaran B (1986) ‘Generic Tasks in Knowledge Based Reasoning’, IEEE Expert, 1,
23-30
Chorley Alison, Bench-Capon Trevor (2004) ‘AGATHA: Automation of the Construction
of Theories in Case Law Domains, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed
Thomas F Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 89-98
Coffa J Alberto (1974) “Hempel’s Ambiguity”, Synthese, 28, pp 141 - 163
Collingwood Robin G (1946) The Idea of History, Oxford, Clarendon Press
Collingwood Robin G (1939) An Autobiography, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Collins Allan, Warnock Eleanor H, Aiello Nelleke, Miller Mark L (1975)‘Reasoning from
Incomplete Knowledge’, Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Sci-
ence, ed Daniel G Bobrow and Allan Collins, New York, Academic Press, 383-415
Copi Irving M (1982) Introduction to Logic, 6th ed , New York, Macmillan
Copi Irving M, Cohen Carl (1994) Introduction to Logic, 9th ed , New York, Macmillan
Dieks Dennis, de Regt Henk W(1998) ‘Reduction and Understanding’, Foundations of Sci-
ence, 1, 45-59
Doyle J (1979) ‘A Truth Maintenance System’, Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231-272
Doyle J (1992) ‘Reason Maintenance and Belief Revision’, Belief Revision, ed Peter Gar-
denfors, Cambridge, Mass , MIT Press, 29-51
Dray William (1964) Philosophy of History, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
Dray William (1995) History as Re-enactment: R G Collingwood’s Idea of History, Oxford,
Oxford University Press
Dung P (1995) ‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Non-
monotonic Reasoning, Logic Progamming and n-person Games’, Artificial Intelli-
gence, 77, 321-357
Ennis Robert H (1982), ‘Identifying Implicit Assumptions’, Synthese, 51, 61-86
Farley Arthur M, Freeman Kathleen (1995) ‘Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation’,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law,
New York, ACM Press
Faye Jan (1999) ‘Explanation Explained’, Synthese, 120, 61-75
Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rulemaking – Rules in Effect (2002) The latest ver-
sions of the federal rules of evidence as well as other rules can be found on the follow-
ing web page: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules4.html
Feteris Eveline T (1999) Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories of
the Justification of Legal Decisions, Dordrecht, Kluwer
 References 251

Finocchiaro Maurice (1980) ‘Scientific Discoveries as Growth of Understanding: The Case

of Newton’s Gravitation’, Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, ed Thomas
Nickles, Dordrecht, Reidel, 235-255
Finocchiaro Maurice (1980a) Galileo and the Art of Reasoning, Dordrecht, Reidel
Frank Jerome (1963) Courts on Trial, New York, Atheneum
Freeman James B (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Berlin, Foris
Freeman James B (1995) ‘The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowl-
edge’, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed Hans V Hansen and
Robert C Pinto, University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 265-273
Friedman Michael (1974) ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, The Journal of Phi-
losophy, 71, 5-19
Friedman Michael (1988) ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, Theories of Expla-
nation, ed J C Pitt, New York, Oxford University Press, 188-198
Friedman Richard D (1986) ‘A Diagrammatic Approach to Evidence’, Boston University
Law Review, 66, 571-622
Friedman Richard D (1994) ‘Conditional Probative Value: Neoclassicism Without Myth’,
Michigan Law Review, 93, 439-460
Gardenfors Peter (1988) Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge, Mass , MIT Press
Gelfond Michael, Przymusinska Halina (1990) ‘Formalization of Inheritance Reasoning in
Autoepistemic Logic’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 13, 403-443
Gilbert Geoffrey (1788) The Law of Evidence, 5th ed , Philadelphia, John Cruikshank
Goldman Alvin I (1970) A Theory of Human Action, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
Goodwin Jean (2000) ‘Wigmore’s Chart Method’, Informal Logic, 20, 2000, 223-243
Gordon Robert M (1986) ‘Folk Psychology as Simulation’, Mind and Language, 1, 158-
171
Gordon Thomas F (1996) ‘Computational Dialectics’, available at the web page:
http://www.tfgordon.de/publications/Gordon1996a.pdf
Gordon Thomas F (1995) The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Proce-
dural Justice, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Gordon Thomas F (1996) ‘Computational Dialectics’, Computers as Assistants – A New
Generation of Support Systems, ed P Hoschka, Mahwah, New Jersey, Erlbaum, 108-
123
Gordon Thomas F, Karacapilidis Nikos (1997) ‘The Zeno Argumentation Framework’,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law,
Melbourne, Australia, 10-18
Gough James, Tindale Christopher (1985) ‘Hidden or Missing Premises’, Informal Logic,
7, 99-106
Grasso Floriana (2002) ‘Towards Computational Rhetoric’, Informal Logic, 22, 195-230
Grennan Wayne (1997) Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s
University Press
Grice H Paul (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, The Logic of Grammar, ed Donald
Davidson and Gilbert Harman, Encino, California, Dickenson, 64-75
Guthrie WKC (1981) A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press
Hage Jaap (2000) ‘Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law’, Artificial Intelli-
gence and Law, 8, 137-172
Hage Jaap (1997) Reasoning With Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying
Logic, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Halonen Ilpo, Hintikka Jaakko (1997) ‘Unification – It’s Magnificent But Is It Explana-
tion?’, Synthese, 120, 27-47
Hamblin Charles L (1970) Fallacies, London, Methuen
252 References

Hamblin, Charles L (1971) ‘Mathematical Models of Dialogue’, Theoria, 37, 130-155

Hansen Hans V, Pinto Robert C (1995) Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings,
University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press
Hart HLA, Honore AM (1962) Causation in the Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Hastings Arthur C (1963) A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation,
Evanston, Illinois, Ph D Dissertation
Hempel Carl G (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York, The Free Press
Hintikka Jaakko (1995) ‘The Games of Logic and the Games of Inquiry’, Dialectica, 49,
229-249
Hitchcock David (1985) ‘Enthymematic Arguments’, Informal Logic, 7, 83-97
Hitchcock David (2004) ‘Toulmin’s Warrants’,: available on David Hitchcock’s personal
web page: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/Toulminswarrants.pdf
Hitchcock David, McBurney Peter, Parsons Simon (2001) ‘A Framework for Deliberation
Dialogues’, Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Con-
ference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), eds H V Han-
sen, CW Tindale, JA Blair and RH Johnson, compact disk. Also available on Peter
McBurney’s web page at the University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Sci-
ence: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/
Hohmann Hanns (1989) ‘The Dynamics of Stasis: Classical Rhetorical Theory and Modern
Legal Argumentation’, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 34, 171-197
Hohmann Hanns (1990) ‘The Nature of the Common Law and the Comparative Study of
Legal Reasoning’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 38, 143-170
Hohmann Hanns (2001) ‘Stasis’, Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, ed Thomas O Sloane, New
York, Oxford University Press, 741-745
Horacek Helmut (1997)‘A Model for Adapting Explanations to the User’s Likely Infer-
ences’, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 7, 1-55
Huber Peter W (1991) Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York, Ba-
sic Books
Hurley Patrick (1991) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed , Belmont, California, Wad-
sworth
Hurley Patrick (2000) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed , Belmont, California, Wad-
sworth
Hurley Patrick (2003) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 8th ed , Belmont, California, Wad-
sworth
Jacobs Scott (1989) ‘Speech Acts and Arguments’, Argumentation, 3, 345-365
Johnson Ralph H (2002) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Mahwah,
New Jersey, Erlbaum
Josephson John R, Josephson Susan G (1994) Abductive Inference: Computation, Philoso-
phy, Technology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Keppens Jeroen, Zeleznikow John (2002) ‘On the Role of Model-based Reasoning in Deci-
sion Support in Crime Investigation’, Report of the Centre for Forensic Statistics and
Legal Reasoning, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh
Kienpointner Manfred (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentations-
mustern, Stuttgart, Fromman-Holzboog
Kienpointner Manfred (1997) ‘On the Art of Finding Arguments: What Ancient and Mod-
ern Masters of Invention Have to Tell Us About the Ars Inveniendi’, Argumentation
11, 225-236
Kienpointner Manfred (2003) ‘Perelman on Causal Arguments: The Argument of Waste’,
5th ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the In-
ternational Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed Frans H van Eemeren,
 References 253

J Anthony Blair, Charles A Willard and Francisca Snoek Henkemans, Amsterdam, Sic
Sat, 611-616
Kitcher Philip (1989) ‘Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World’, Sci-
entific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 13, ed Philip
Kitcher and Wesley Salmon, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 410-505
Krabbe Erik CW (1995) ‘Appeal to Ignorance’, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary
Readings, ed Hans V Hansen and Robert C Pinto, University Park, The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 251-264
Krabbe Erick CW (1996) ‘Can We Ever Pin One Down to a Formal Fallacy?’, Logic and
Argumentation, ed Johan van Benthem, Frans H van Eemeren and Frank Veltman,
Amsterdam, North-Holland, 129-141
Krabbe Erik CW (1999) ‘Profiles of Dialogue’, JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Ben-
them on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, ed Jelle Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maarten
de Rijke and Yde Venema, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 25-36
Krabbe Erik CW (2001) ‘The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion’, Synthese, 127,
141-159
Leenes Ronald E (2001) ‘Burden of Proof in Dialogue Games and Dutch Civil Procedure’,
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, St
Louis, Missouri, ACM Press, 109-118
Lester J, Porter B (1997) ‘Developing and Empirically Evaluating Robust Explanation
Generators: The KNIGHT Experiments’, Computational Linguistics, 2, 65-101
Lodder Arno R (1999) Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumen-
tation, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Lodder Arno R (2000) ‘Book Review of Gordon (1995)’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8,
255-264
Loftus Elisabeth (1979) Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University
Press
Loui Ronald P (1998) ‘Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reason-
ing’, Computational Intelligence, 14, 1-38
Loui Ronald P, GordonThomas F (1994), Call for papers for 1994 AAAI Seattle Workshop
on Computational Dialectics http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/comectics.text
Mackenzie Jim (1981) ‘The Dialectics of Logic’, Logique et Analyse, 94, 159-177
Mackenzie Jim (1990) ‘Four Dialogue Systems’, Studia Logica, 49, 567-583
Mackie John L (1965) ‘Causes and Conditions’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 245-
264
Mates Benson (1996) The Skeptic Way: Sextus Empiricus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Ox-
ford, Oxford University Press
Mayfield James (2000) ‘Evaluating Plan Recognition Systems: Three Properties of a Good
Explanation’, Artificial Intelligence Review, 14, 351-376
McBurney Peter, Parsons Simon (2002) ‘Dialogue Games in Multi-Agents Systems’, In-
formal Logic, 22, 257-274
Michael Jerome, Adler Mortimer (1934) ‘The Trial of an Issue of Fact: I’, Columbia Law
Review, 34, 1224-1306
Michael Jerome, Adler Mortimer (1934), ‘The Trial of an Issue of Fact: II’, Columbia Law
Review, 34, 1462-1493
Moore Johanna D (1991) ‘A Reacting Approach to Explanation: Taking the User’s Feed-
back into Account’, Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Com-
putational Linguistics, ed CL Paris, WR Swartout and WC Mann, Dordrecht, Kluwer,
3-48
Moore Johanna D (1995) Participating in Explanatory Dialogues, Cambridge, Mass , MIT
Press
254 References

Moore Robert C (1985) ‘Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic’, Artificial In-

telligence, 25, 75-94
Morgan Edmund L (1929) ‘Functions of Judge and Jury in the Determination of Prelimi-
nary Questions of Fact’, Harvard Law Review, 43, 1929, 165-191
Moulin B, Irandoust H, Belanger M, Desbordes G (2002) ‘Explanation and Argumentation
Capabilities’, Artificial Intelligence Review, 17, 169-222
Nance Dale A (1995) ‘Conditional Probative Value and the Reconstruction of the Federal
Rules of Evidence’, Michigan Law Review, 94, 419-456
Nissan Ephraim (2001) ‘The Bayesianism Debate in Legal Scholarship’, Artificial Intelli-
gence and Law, 9, 199-214
Nuchelmans Gabriel (1993) ‘On the Fourfold Root of the Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Em-
pirical Logic and Public Debate, ed Erik CW Krabbe, Renee Jose Dalitz and Pier A
Smit, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 37-47
Palmer Andrew (2003) Proof and the Preparation of Trials, Sydney, Australia, Lawbook
Co
Park Roger C (1998) ‘Character at the Crossroads’, Hastings Law Journal, 49, 749-754
Park Roger C, Leonard David P, Goldberg Steven H (1998) Evidence Law, St Paul, Minne-
sota West Group,
Pearl Judea (1991) ‘Probabilistic Semantics for Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Philosophy and
AI: Essays on the Interface, ed Robert Cummins and John Pollock, Cambridge, Mass ,
The MIT Press, 157-187
Pearl Judea (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press
Peirce Charles S (1965) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol V, ‘Pragmatism
and Pragmaticism’, ed Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard
University Press
Peirce Charles S (1965II) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol II, ‘Elements of
Logic’, ed Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University
Press
Peirce Charles S (1992) Reasoning and the Logic of Things, ed Kenneth Laine Kettner,
Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University Press
Peng Yun, Reggia James A (1990) Abductive Inference Models for Diagnostic Problem-
Solving, New York, Springer-Verlag
Perelman Chaim, Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie (1971) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argu-
mentation, trans J Wilkinson and P Weaver, 2nd ed , Notre Dame, University of Notre
Dame Press, (First published, as La Nouvelle Rhetorique, in 1958)
Pollock John L (1987) ‘Defeasible Reasoning’, Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518
Pollock John L (1995) Cognitive Carpentry, Cambridge, Mass , The MIT Press
Prakken Henry (1991) ‘On Formalizing Burden of Proof in Legal Argument’, Legal
Knowledge-Based Systems: JURIX 99, the Twelfth Conference, Nijmegen, Gerard
Noodt Instituut, 85-97
Prakken Henry (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Prakken Henry ‘Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argu-
mentation’, Synthese, 127, 187-219
Prakken Henry (2001) ‘Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?’, Fundamenta
Informaticae, 20, 1-20
Prakken Henry (2002) ‘Incomplete Arguments in Legal Discourse: a Case Study’, Legal
Knowledge and Information Systems ed TJM Bench-Capon, A Daskalopulu and
R Winkels JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 93-
102
 References 255

Prakken Henry (2003) ‘Perelman Formalized? On Reconciling the Ideals of Logical Valid-
ity and Persuasiveness’, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Soci-
ety for the Study of Argumentation, ed Frans H van Eemeren, J Anthony Blair, Charles
A Willard and Francisca Snoek Henkemans, Amsterdam, Sic Sat, 857-860
Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2003) ‘Argumentation Schemes and Gener-
alisations in Reasoning about Evidence’, Proceedings of the Conference: The 9th Inter-
national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, University of Edinburgh, New
York, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 32-41
Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2005) ‘Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’,
unpublished paper
Prakken Henry, Renooij Silja (2001) ‘Reconstructing Causal Reasoning about Evidence: A
Case Study’, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed Bart Verheij, Arno R
Lodder, Ronald P Loui and A Muntjewerjj, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 131-142
Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (1996) ‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Ar-
guments in Legal Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 331-368
Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (1997) ‘Argument-based Extended Logic Programming
with Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7, 25-75
Prakken Henry Sartor Giovanni (2003) ‘The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law’, Ra-
tio Juris, 16, 495-516
Preyer Gerhard, Mans Dieter (1999) ‘On Contemporary Developments in the Theory of
Argumentation’, Protosociology, 13, 3-13
Reed Chris (1998) ‘Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication’, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ed Y Demazeau, IEEE Press, 246-
253
Reed Chris, Rowe Glenn (2002) ‘Araucaria Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagram-
ming and XML’, Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of
Dundee Available at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
Reed Chris, Rowe Glenn (2003) Araucaria, Version 2, User Manual, Available at
http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
Reed Chris, Norman Timothy J 2003 Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument
and Computation, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Reed Chris, Walton Doug (2005) ‘Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumen-
tation Schemes in Agent Communication’, Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-
Agent Systems, to appear
Reiter Raymond (1980) ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81-132
Reiter Raymond (1987) ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Annual Review of Computer Science,
2, 147-186
Renon Luis Vega (1998) ‘Aristotle’s Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation’, Argumenta-
tion, 12, 95-113
Rissland Edwina L (1990, 1957-1980) ‘Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to
a Model of Legal Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 99
Rissland Edwina L, Ashley Kevin D, Loui RP (2003) ‘AI and Law: A Fruitful Synergy’,
Artficial Intelligence, 150, 1-15
Rescher Nicholas (1976) Plausible Reasoning, Assen, Van Gorcum
Robinson Richard (1953) Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed, Oxford, Clarendon Press
Roth Bram, Verheij Bart (2004) ‘Dialectical Arguments and Case Comparison’, Legal
Knowledge and Information Systems, ed Thomas F Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press,
99-108
Roth Bram, Verheij Bart (1995) ‘Cases and Dialectical Arguments: An Approach to Case-
Based Reasoning’, WORM’04: The Second International Workshop on Regulatory On-
256 References

tologies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3292, ed R Meersman, Z Tari and A
Corsaro, Heidelberg, Springer, 634-651
Russell Stuart J, Norvig Peter (2004) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Upper
Saddle River, Prentice Hall
Salmon Wesley C (1970) ‘Statistical Explanation’, The Nature and Function of Scientific
Theories, ed Robert G Colodny, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 173-231
Salmon Wesley C (1989) ‘Four Decades of Scientific Explanation’, Scientific Explanation,
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 13, Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota Press, 3-219
Salmon Wesley C (1992) ‘Scientific Explanation’, Introduction to the Philosophy of Sci-
ence, ed Merrilee H Salmon et al, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 7-41
Salmon Wesley C (1998) ‘The Importance of Scientific Understanding’, Causality and Ex-
planation, ed Wesley Salmon, New York, Oxford University Press ,79-91
Saunders Kevin W (1993) ‘Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation’, South Carolina
Law Review, 44, 343-382
Schank Roger C (1986) Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Crea-
tively, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Erlbaum
Schank Roger C, Abelson Robert P (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Hills-
dale, N J Erlbaum
Schum David A (1994) Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, New York,
John Wiley and Sons
Schurz Gerhard (1999) ‘Explanation as Unification’, Synthese, 95-114
Scott AC, Clancey WJ, Davis R, Shortliffe EH (1977) ‘Explanation Capabilities of Knowl-
edge-Based Production Systems’, Rule-Based Expert Systems, ed BG Buchanan and
EH Shortliffe, Addison Wesley, 338-362
Scriven Michael (1962) ‘Explanations, Predictions and Laws’, Minnesota Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, vol 3, ed H Feigl and G Maxwell, Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota Press, 171-174
Scriven Michael (1964) ‘Critical Study of The Structure of Science’, Review of Metaphys-
ics, 17, 403-424
Scriven Michael (1976) Reasoning, New York, McGraw-Hill
Segal Martin E (2004) ‘In Inheritance Case, Try Shifting Burden of Proof’, Ask Doctor
Law, The Miami Herald, December 13, 8
Sextus Empiricus (1933) Against the Logicians (AL), trans RG Bury, Loeb Classical Li-
brary, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University Press
Sidgwick Alfred (1883) Fallacies: A View of Logic from the Practical Side, London, Kegan
Paul, Trench and Company
Sidgwick Alfred (1893) The Process of Argument, London, Adam and Charles Black
Singh Munindar P (2000) ‘A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages’, Is-
sues in Agent Communication, ed Frank Dignum and Mark Greaves, Berlin, Springer-
Verlag, 31-45
Singh Munidar P (1998) ‘Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles’,
Computer, 31, 425-445
Snoeck Henkemans A F (1992) Analyzing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of
Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion, Am-
sterdam, SICSAT
Snoeck Henkemans A Francisca (2001) ‘Argumentation Structures’, Crucial Concepts in
Argumentation Theory, ed Frans H van Eemeren, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University
Press ,101-134
 References 257

Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ (1995) ‘Publication Decisions Revisited: The
Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa’,
The American Statistician, 49, 108-112
Stevenson Charles L (1944) Ethics and Language, New Haven, Yale University Press
Strong John W (ed) (1992) McCormick on Evidence, 4th ed, St Paul, Minn , West Publish-
ing Co
Thayer James Bradley (1889)A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law,
New York, Little Brown & Co
Thayer James Bradley (1989) ‘Presumptions and the Law of Evidence’, Harvard Law Re-
view, 3, 141-166
Thomas Stephen N (1981) Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 2nd ed , Englewood
Cliffs Prentice-Hall
Tillers Peter (1994) ‘Exaggerated and Misleading Reports of the Death of Conditional
Relevance’, Michigan Law Review, 93, 478-484
Toulmin Stephen (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Trout JD (2002) ‘Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding’, Philosophy of
Science, 69, 212-233
Twining William (1985) Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore, London, Wei-
denfeld and Nicolson
Twining William (1999) ‘Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation About Questions
of Fact’, South Texas Law Review, 40, 351-365
Twining William, Miers David (1976) How To Do Things With Rules, London, Weidenfeld
and Nicolson
van Eemeren Frans H, Grootendorst Rob (1984) Speech Acts in Communicative Discus-
sions, Dordrecht, Foris
van Eemeren Frans H, Grootendorst Rob (1987) 'Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspec-
tive’, Argumentation, 1, 283-301
van Eemeren Frans H, Grootendorst Rob (1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fal-
lacies, Hillsdale, N J , Erlbaum
van Eemeren Frans H, Kruiger Tjark (1987) ‘Identifying Argumentation Schemes’, Argu-
mentation: Perspectives and Approaches, ed Frans H van Eemeren et al , Dordrecht,
Foris, 70- 81
van Fraassen Bas C (1980) The Scientific Image, Oxford, Clarendon Press
van Fraassen Bas C (1993) ‘The Pragmatics of Explanation’, Explanation, ed David-Hillel
Ruben, Oxford, Oxford University press, 275-309
Verheij Bart (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and De-
feat, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maastricht
Verheij Bart (2000)‘Dialectical Argumentation as a Heuristic for Courtroom Decision Mak-
ing’, web page of Bart Verheij, Department of Metajuridica, Universiteit Maastricht
Verheij Bart (2000) ‘Logic, Context and Valid Inference Or: Can There be a Logic of Law’,
available on the following web page:www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/
Verheij Bart (2003) Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach
to Legal Logic’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195
Verheij Bart (2005) Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers
and Other Arguers, The Hague, TMC Asser Press
von Wright Georg Henrik (1971) Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca, New York, Cor-
nell University Press
Wagenaar, Willem A, van Koppen Peter J, Crombag Hans FM (1993) Anchored Narra-
tives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, Hertfordshire, Harvester Wheatsheaf
Walton Douglas N (1984) Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies, Lanham, Maryland,
University Press of America
258 References

Walton Douglas (1989) Informal Logic, New York, Cambridge University Press
Walton Douglas (1990) ‘Ignoring Qualifications (Secundum Quid) as a Subfallacy of Hasty
Generalization’, Logique et Analyse, 129-130, 113-154
Walton Douglas (1992) ‘Nonfallacious Arguments from Ignorance’, American Philosophi-
cal Quarterly, Vol 29, 381-387
Walton Douglas (1995) A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, The University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa and London
Walton Douglas (1996) Arguments from Ignorance, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn
Sate Press
Walton Douglas (1996)Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Mahwah, New
Jersey, Erlbaum
Walton Douglas (1997) Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn
State Press
Walton Douglas (1998) The New Dialectic, Toronto, University of Toronto Press
Walton Douglas (1998a) Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama
Press
Walton Douglas (1999) ‘Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization’, Argumentation,
13, 161-182
Walton Douglas (1999) ‘Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue’, Informal Logic,
19: 119-143 Available at www.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton
Walton Douglas (1999) One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias, Albany,
State University of New York Press
Walton Douglas (2001) ‘Abductive, Presumptive and Plausible Arguments’, Informal
Logic, 21, 141-169
Walton Douglas (2002) Legal Argumentation and Evidence, University Park, Pennsylvania,
The Pennsylvania State University Press
Walton Douglas (2003) ‘Argumentation Schemes: The Basis of Conditional Relevance’,
Michigan State University Law Review, 4, 1205-1242
Walton Douglas (2004) ‘A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation’, Philosophical Explo-
rations, 7, 71-89
Walton Douglas (2004a) Abductive Reasoning, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press
Walton Douglas (2004) Relevance in Argumentation, Mahwah, New Jersey, Erlbaum
Walton Douglas, Krabbe Erik CW (1995)Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of In-
terpersonal Reasoning, Albany, State University of New York Press
Walton Douglas, Reed Chris (2003) ‘Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical
Questions’, Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argu-
mentation, ed Frans H van Eemeren, J Anthony Blair, Charles A Willard, and A Fran-
cisca Snoek Henkemans, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp 195-211
Walton Douglas, Reed Chris (2004) ‘Enthymemes and Argumentation Schemes’, Synthese,
to appear
Weber Erik, van Dyck Maarten (2002) ‘Unification and Explanation’, Synthese, 131, 145-
154
Whatley Richard (1836) Elements of Logic, 6th ed, London, B Fellowes
Wick MR, Thompson WB (1992) ‘Reconstructive Expert System Explanation’, Artificial
Intelligence, 54, 33-70
Wigmore John H (1913) The Principles of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little, Brown and Com-
pany (second edition, 1931)
Wigmore John H (1935) A Student’s Textbook of the Law of Evidence, Chicago, The Foun-
dation Press
Wigmore John H (1940) A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at
Common Law, 3rd ed, vol 1, Boston, Little, Brown and Company
 References 259

Wigmore John H (1983) Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol 1a, ed Peter Tillers, Bos-
ton, Little, Brown and Company
Woods John (1999) ‘Peirce’s Abductive Enthusiasms’, Protosociology, 13: 117-125
Wooldridge Michael (2002) Reasoning About Rational Agents, Cambridge Mass , The MIT
Press
Wright Richard W (1985) ‘Causation in Tort Law’, California Law Review, 73, 1735-1828
Index

abduction 103-105 160-61 176 scheme for 12 45

consistency-based 165 appeal to witness testimony 8 43 45-46
machines 200 53 57 74 228-229
abductive argument 9 10 58 104 163 169 critical questions for 13 45-46
234 importance in law 75
critical questions 106 modus ponens 47
scheme 105 237 scheme for 13 150
abstraction 38 42 68 warrant for 47
ladder of 68 70 Araucaria 51-53 71 227 229
tree of 6816 chain of reasoning represented 187
ad baculum fallacy 126 diagram 122 134 190-91 219 224
Achinstein Peter 204 dialectical 196
ad hominem argument 27 117 139 167 explanation analysis 192
234 how to use 5-7 235
circumstantial 155 language of 233
ethotic 11 letter example 134 135 136
Adler Mortimer 119 probability values 130-31
advocacy 93 150 151 problematic 242
affidavit argument 90 91 ArguMed 82
affirming the consequent 238 argument 209
AGATHA system 145 as explanation 194
agent 12 26 circular 208
characteristics of 167 169 174 components of 241 247-248
commitments 29 138 195 convergent 2 3-4 120 131
defined 173 174 deductive 74
goals of 175 178 181 195 defeasible94
knowledge 202-203 characteristics 109 110
multi-agent 93 164 173 174 195 203 defined 7578
purpose 204 dialogue sequence 109-10
qualifications of 202-203 evaluation of 91-92 95 112
rational 56 195 open-ended 108 109
self-defence 147 distinguished 192-93
airline flight schedule example 97 evaluation 245
airport example 102 hypothetical 194
anchored narrative 157 209 212 linked 2-3 4 62-63 70 120 169
Anderson Terrence J 9 36 37 42-44 48 moves in 92
150 230 231 233 plausible 215
appeal to expert opinion 12 29 43-46 66 priority 88
78 real 245
critical questions for 12 serial 149
fallibility 113 syllogistic 4
262 Index
weak 61 243
argument diagram 147 217 240
components 2 217-218
problems with 231
usefulness of 230
argument extrapolation 115 125 127
128138 140 141 225
argument from appearance 104
argumentation scheme 90
critical questions for 90-91
defeasible 104
argument from an established rule 11
235
argument from analogy 11 84-86 144-47
215 235
critical questions for 85
argument from bias 11
argument from cause to effect 11 234
236
critical questions for 236
described 236
argument from commitment 11 46 138
argument from correlation to cause 11
234
argument from effect to cause
scheme for 237-238
argument from evidence to a hypothesis
11 234
argument from example 10 46 235
argument from exception to a rule 11
argument for an exceptional case 85-86
critical questions for 86
argument from expert opinion 15 18 46
75 163 215 234 239 246
critical question for 12 29
defeasibility of 77-78
example of 78
scheme for 12 45 91
argument from fear appeal 11
argument from gradualism 11 46 235
argument from ignorance 10 60 63-65
87 96 97 101 161
critical questions for 18-19 98-99
dependence of 67
epistemic version 99
fallacious 100
in law 65
logical forms 100
scheme 66 98 103
search process in 217
shifting 103
argument from inconsistent commitment
11 234
argument from popular opinion 10 38
235
argument from positive or negative con-
sequences 10
argument from precedent 11 46 84 144
235 247
critical questions for 84
argument from sign 10 46 57 234
argument from sunk costs 10 234
argument from threat 11 234
argument from verbal classification 10
235
argument from witness testimony 18 53
75 119 150 234
critical questions for 13
scheme for 13
argument invention 34 214 215 221 232
characteristics 215
components 215-216
search process 216
bidirectional 226
recursive 217
argumentation
chain of 2 126 128 216 226 230
misdirected 140
relevance in 115
schemes 44 230 234-235
elements of 233
defeasible 10
research on 233
argumentum ad baculum 116 117
argumentum ad ignorantiam (see argu-
ment from ignorance)
argumentum ad populum (see argument
from popular opinion)
Aristotle 28n7 41 80 174 197 213
argument invention 214 240
dialogue classification 153 156
dialogue structure 94
enthymeme 81
examination dialogue 153 154-56
fallacy 117 139
practical syllogism 174
artificial intelligence (AI) 56 59 101-102
168
current methodology 72
explanation generation 177 181-82
search 214
assumptions 134-35 194 209 247
 Index 263

closed world 66 101 Carberry Sandra 28

hidden 152 Carneades 170
implicit 52 188 190 case specific generalizations 37 43-44
missing 131 cases
needed 131 easy 138 141 218 222 240
procedural 141 hard 138 141 222 240 241 244
tentative 106 real 25 128 131 138 211 222 223 226
used 131 232 237 241 247
attack 24 27 71 72 88 139 140 146 148 CATO system 144
215 causation 238-239
cause to effect argumentation 236
Ball Vaughn C 118 132 133 Cawsey Alison 173 176 196 211
basement water example 176-77 Chakrabarti Kisor Kumar 41
Bayesian rules 169 character 153
Belanger M 177178 defined 167
belief 29 36 44 56 63 164 166 195 Chorley Alison 145-46
defined 95 circumstantial ad hominem 11
belief and knowledge model 88 Coffa J Alberto 182
belief-desire-intention (BDI) 28 95 164- Cohen Carl 39-40 41 82
66 Collingwood Robin G 168 176
belief revision theory 95 163 165-66 theory of reenactment 202 203-204
Bench-Capon Trevor 145 146 view of explanation 175 196
Bex Floris 233 Collingwood-Dray agent 203
bias 46 97 105 commitment 163
indicator 46 defined 95-96
witness 46 57 openness 164
bounded rationality 42 respondent 93
breach of Contract Case 223-229 retraction 29 109 110 166
defining elements 225 rules 95 108 164
key list for 223-224 228 set 95 210
Bromberger Sylvain 196 210 store 19-20 29
burden of disproof 109 tentative 110
burden of proof 17 87 99 understanding 183
defined 230-231 witness 151
disputes about 30 computational dialectics 75 91-92 142
distribution of 65 102 156
global 17 computer science 20 65 81 97 184
higher 91 conclusion 216
in law 32 retraction 109
levels of 17 ultimate 115 117-18 126 127 36 166
meaning 99n6 198 216-217 222 225 227
problem of 243 conditional 236
responsibility of 96 defeasible 61 80
reversal of 63 65 67 87 88 103 109- knowledge-based 87
10 219 222 243 confidence factors 59 80
shift 19 60 88 100 218-219 connective 233
illicit 101 consistency 12 58 152
weight in trial 17-18 critical questions for 45-46
Burnyeat Myles F 14n6 80-81 contentious argument 28n7 154
contract dispute 18-21
car example 39 73-74 194 contract dispute case 89 91
264 Index

conversation 197 basic types 22-23 93 246

defined 196 closing 93
framework 211 confrontation 93
Copi Irving M 39-40 41 82 defined 21 92
covering law model of explanation 177 embedding 151
178 200 goals of 92 94
plausibility of 183 mixed 28
unnecessary 181 opening 93
cranberry cask case 48-53 72 stages of 93
key list for 50-51 didactic argument
critical discussion 24-25 28 112 151-53 defined 154
classification 116 Dieks Dennis 204
conflict in 116 dismissal law case 147 153
goal 24 disorder evocation 199
retraction in 28 dispute 18
stages of 24 dynamic 113
ten rules for argumentation stage 24- dissent 17 18
25 DNA testing case 5-7 12
Crombag Hans FM 46 domain-dependent 206
Donoghue case 67-68
Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Doyle J 166
case 77 Dray William 178 203-204
De Regt Henk W 204 drug/herb example 67
debate Dung P 88 203
parliamentary 21
deductive-nomological (DN) theory 165 embedding 163
178-80 embryo sac formation example 177
resistance to 203 empathy 167 203 207
restriction of application 181 182 endoxa 154
defaults 86 Ennis Robert H 131
rules 86-87 entanglement 147-49
defeasibility 76 enthymemes 5 80-81
defeasible generalization fallacy 40 defined 14 131
defeat 71 problem of 242
defeater 88 111 149 epistemic closure 96 113
DEFLOG 247 eristic dialogue 27
deletion test 120 136 ethotic ad hominem argument 11
deliberation dialogue 26 Euthydemus example 40 74
eight stages of 27 evidence
goal of 28 112 character 102 153 166
group 26 circumstantial 157-58
solitary 26 evaluation 169
dependency-directed backtrack- fixation of 151
ing(DDB) theory 166 forensic 104 163
Desbordes G 177 178 lack of 102
dialectic legal 75-76 103205
defined 197 production of 231
dialectical arguments 154 174 relevant 105 130
goal of 154 testimonial 151 157-58
dialogue testing of 153
argumentation 93 weight of 96
 Index 265

evidential facts fallacies 38 105

circumstantial 8 of irrelevance 117
testimonial 8 of relevance 117
ex silentio argument 87 96 fallacy of accident 40
examination 94 fallacy of converse accident 40
cross-examination 152 fallacy of hasty generalization 38 39 41
defined 153 73
described 152 fallacy of ignoratio elenchi 117 138
dialogue aspects of 153 154 requirements for 117
goal of 153 fallacy of secundum quid 41
process of 152-53 fallacy of wrong conclusion 139 140
examination dialogue 154 Farley Arthur M 17
defined 154 156 Faye Jan 191
exetastic arguments 155 Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 76-77
described 155 140 157 166 213
experience-based generalization 36 44 rule 401 130 132
explanation controversial 132
analysis 175 191 rule 404 153
asymmetry 207 rule 608 154
based on 176 feedback 174 209 211
best 104 160 199 200-202 Feteris Eveline T 153
competing 201 Finocchiaro Maurice 204
deep 177 foreign spy case 101-102
defined 161 191 193 204 205 fossils example 104
dialectical 196 Freeman James B 17
characteristics of 209-210 Freeman Kathleen 17
distinguished 192 Friedman Michael 133 204
evaluation 199 Frye criterion 76-77
goal 206 207 inadequacy of 77
good 194-95
human 203 Gardenfors Peter 165
identification 199 general acceptance test 76-77
in history 175 181 203 204 general background information 36
low-level 201 general knowledge generalizations 37 43
new dialectical theory of 195-97 general law 179
problem with 206 generalizations 15 49 167 210
pragmatics of 181 absolute 36 54 62 70 179 185 208
purpose of 195 general law 179-80
question answering 196-97 absolute universal 36 54-55 62
reasoning in 185 ambivalence 37
scientific 190 199 201 204 205 212 belief 36 44
speech act conditions for 197-99 characteristics of 42-43
stages 210 common sense 36 138 241
strategic 177 178 dangers of 38
trace 177 defeasible 39 53 56 60 72 108 184
execution 185 187
extrapolation 125 127-28 defined 42 54 68 69
domain specific 218
factors 145-46 empirical 43
antecedent 180 evaluation 73
fairness doctrine 219 221 exceptions to 182
266 Index

existential 54 horrible crime of murder example 117-

expected 208 18 128 129 138 139
fallibility 36 Hurley Patrick 39 54-55 139 183-84 192
faultless 185 194
generic statement 79 HYPO system 144
implicit 44 hypotheses 141 146
importance of 229n7 defined 145
inductive 39 54 55 79 184 generation 200
legal 36 37 41 68 74 testing 200
importance of 47
levels of 68 implications 233
presumptive 36 54 58-59 60 184 inconsistency 165
defeasible 185 inductive fallacy 39
qualifier gaps 73 inductive-statistical explanations (I-S)
probabilistic 36 179-80
qualifications of 40 60 problems with 182-83
qualified 79 106 inference
types of 43 184 abductive 160-61
universal 60 79 argumentation scheme 161-62
counter-example 73 criticism of 72-73
Given 176 205 209 deductive 69
goal 22 174 176 187 207 monotonicity 59
conflicting 175 deductively valid 55
covering 200 fallacious 41
parsimony 200 forward moving defeasible 237
subversion 117 graphs 88
Goldberg Steven H 93 99 102 118 153 lack-of-evidence 60
231 lack-of-knowledge 161
Goodwin Jean 57 link 7
Grennan Wayne 236 plausible 58
Grice H Paul presumptive
on conversation 196 207 245 246 default 62
Grootendorst Rob 24 163 207 rules of 216 218
guess inference to the best explanation 104
best 160 106 160 168
Guthrie WKC 155-56 infinite regress dialogue 21 29 96
Aristotle interpreted 156 information-seeking type of dialogue 26
inquiry 25
Halonen Ilpo 204 cumulative 28
Hamblin Charles L 197 211 interlocutors 154
Aristotle analyzed by 155-56 internal stability adjustment 166
dialogue theory of 92 94 210 INUS Condition test 239
formal theory of 21-22 Irandoust H 177 178
game 164 irrelevance 117
relevance 116 irrelevant arguments 232
Hart HLA 239
hearsay example 40 74 Joseph HWB 40
Hempel Carl J. 178-80 183 Josephson John R 176 182 185 196 199-
Hintikka Jaakko 204 200 205 209
Hitchcock David 26-27 Josephson Susan 176 182 185 196 199-
Honore AM 239 200 205 209
 Index 267

Keppens Jeroen 103 104 141 missing property generalization 50

Kienpointer Manfred 215 217 238 modus ponens 7 15 94
Kitcher Philip 181 204 defeasible (DMP) 61 81-82 83 233
KNIGHT system 176 177 180 182 argumentation scheme 107
knowledge base 241-242 strict (SMP) 81-82 233
knowledge-based systems 177 modus non excipiens61
Krabbe Erik CW 92 103 164 166 monotonicity 59
Kruiger Tjark 236 Moore Robert C 173 176 209. 210
Morgan Edmund L 132
lack of evidence argument 87 96 Moulin B 177 178
lack of knowledge 74 96 mumps example 180
language
clarity 207 Nance Dale A 132
emotive 38 46 new dialectic 195
indicator words 4 82 120 new shoes case 85
natural 4 82 83 95 222 247 negative argument from ignorance
understandable 190 scheme 98
law 183 negative reasoning from a knowledge
lawyer argument 83 base 97
least plausibility rule 59 negotiation dialogue 26 210
legal argumentation 65 81 151 argumentation in 26
abductive 106 goal 116 126
burden of proof 102 Norvig Peter 194-95
presumption 88
relevance 120 Occam's razor 200
Leonard David P 93 99 102 118 153 231 Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie 236
Lester J 176 177 online dispute resolution (ODR) 248
letter example 132-36 138 openness to defeat condition (OTD)
Araucaria diagram 134 135 135 108-109 110 111
key list 133
line of reasoning 8 painting example 121-23
linking 187 key list for 121-22
locution see also speech act 21-22 92 Palmer Andrew 213
Loftus Elisabeth 151 Park Roger 93 99 102 118 153 231
logic 240 parking example 139 140
autoepistemic 56 63 181 Parsons Simon 26-27
erotetic 196 Pearl Judea 31 88
logical empiricism 178 peirastic arguments 154 155
Lorenzen School in Germany 94 Peirce Charles S 104 159 164
Peircian trichotomy 176
Macagno Fabrizio 242 Peng Yun 199 200
Mackenzie Jim 92 Perelman Chaim 236
Mackie John L 239 permissive persuasion dialogue (PPD)
Mans Dieter 159 95
matter of fact test 192-94 persuasion 25
McBurney Peter 26-27 rational 93 95 126
McCarthy tribunal 100-101 types of 25
medical diagnosis 165 180 182 199-201 persuasion dialogue 93
aim of 201 argumentation in 26
Michael Jerome 119 characteristic of 23 25
Miers David 67 critical discussion 24
268 Index

normative requirements 23-24 explanation-seeking why question

purpose 126 176
relevance 24 field 12
plan recognition 175 202 opinion 12
planning 175 reply 209
Plato 154 trustworthiness 12
plausibility 46 58 59 types of 197
defined 170 why-question 22 187 211
pleading 17 32 contrastive feature of 191
Pollock John L 71 72 88 89 91 111 149
Porter B 176 177 radiator dialogue 186-91 195-96
Prakken Henry 18 59 87 88 89 113 233 rainy day case 80-81
237 ratio decidendi 144
practical reasoning 10 reasonable 31
practical wisdom 174 reasoning 194
precedent 83 abductive 103 159 161-63 206 238
prejudice 117 retroductive 161
prejudice example 39 73-74 case-based (CBR) 144
premise 215 chain of 130
completeness 66 circular 200
implicit 83 121 186 226 deductive 159 179
lack of knowledge 66 defeasible 56 88
missing 81 128 138 defined209
unstated 14 epistemic 88
presupposition 187 faulty inductive 73-74
Preyer Gerhard 159 hypothesis-and-test (HAT) 199 201
Prior Analytics 41 goal 201
probability 185 hypothetical 194
probative weight 120 130 inductive 159 169 179
proof 192 logical 178-79
deductive 182 negative 97 161
described 194 nonmonotonic 97
standard of 102 plausible 58
proponent 1 17 45 92 116 173 evaluating 169
goal 126 sequence of 190
thesis 125 simulative 203
proposition reasons 92n4 202
relevcondiant 223 rebuttal 94
rebutting defeaters 71-72 90
qualifier 73 red herring fallacy 139 140
quantifier 54 69 collapse 139
absolutely universal 69 79 red marbles example 159-61
generally universal 69 red object example 71-72 89-91 104
universal 63 183 184 reduction 204
types of 185 Reed Chris 233 242
quarrel 27 reenactment 168
question refutation 52 71 148
backup evidence 12 conclusive 149
consistency 12 misconception of 117
critical 73 78 150 240245 Reggia James A 199 200
expertise 12
 Index 269

Reiter Raymond 59 66 97 101-102 165 diagramming 53

166 science of proof 93 118 119 138
relevance 116 244 scientific discovery 204
conditional 115 132 133 218 222 227 scientific generalizations 36 43
defined 118 scientific proofs 154
determining 227 scientific truth 36
steps for 137 script 157 167 175
dialectical 125 126 Scriven Michael 25 181 238
requirements of 126 Sextus Empiricus 91 170-71
failure of 140 Sidgwick Alfred 56 57 72 185-86
judging 126 222 situationally disqualifying ad hominem
legal 115 117 127 142 argument 11
defined 118 skidding example 237
logical 118 225 slippery slope argument 11
defined 118 Socrates 40 55 154-55 197
problem of 243 speech acts 21 19 92 173 176 211
process of determining 232 speed limit example 64-65
Renooij Silja 237 inference diagram 64
Rescher Nicholas 59 185 stages 111
respondent 1 17 45 92 116 173 argumentation 24
thesis 125 closing 24 25
retraction 25 28 110 confrontation 24
conditions for 166 opening 24
rigorous persuasion dialogues (RPDs) stasis theory 232
95 statement
rhetoric 240 general 54
rope example 91 particular 54
Roth Bram 147 148 straw man fallacy 24 131
rules 83 216 241 Strong John W 231
admissibility 33 student essay example (a) 84
commitment 95 108 164 student essay example (b) 86
default 86-86 88
dialogue 21 tactics
exceptions to 56 107 deceptive 38
general 67 104 persuasive 117
least plausible premise 59 130 131 testimony
169 expert 218
maxmin 131 hearsay 40
of law 221 witness 77 78 94 158
procedural 30 153 fallibility of 150
strict 82 Thagard Paul 201
trial 93 Theophrastus' Rule 59
win-loss 21 92 theory 145
Russell Stuart J 194-95 theory of action 69
Thompson WB 178
Sacco and Vanzetti case 8 36 56 threat 126
Salmon Wesley C 204 Tillers Peter 119 133
Sartor Giovanni 87 88 89 145 tort argument 82
Schank Roger C 175 Toulmin Stephen 106-107 246
Schurz Gerhard 204 toxic tort cases 239
Schum David A 8 31 36 56 233 tree diagrams 31-32 72
270 Index

trial Vancouver Airport example 66

adversarial 151 152 153
common law 93
criminal 2 65 117
network of argumentation 153 156
rules 93 1125??? 118 153
stages of 93-94
types of 31
Trout JD 204
Tweety argument/inference 58-63 70-71
79 108 184-85
defeasibility 79 87 109
Twining William 9 36 37 38 42-44 48
57 67 93 118 230 231 233
ultimate probandum 2 18 119-21 127
130 138 139 223
negation of 228
Umilian case 8
undercutter 50 82 88 111 148 149
undercutting defeaters 71-72 90
understanding
defined 204
lack of 205
nature of 204
psychological feeling of 196 202
relative to knowledge 202
scientific 206
subjective 195
transmission of 181
undue influence case 219
key list for 220-221
unification 204
unpaid suit example 124-25
key list for 124
values 145-46
van Dyck Maarten 205
van Eemeren Frans 24 163 207 236
van Fraasen Bas 196 210
van Koppen Peter J 46
Verheij Bart 61 82 147 148 233 242 247
von Wright Georg Henrik 202 205 211
Wagenaar Willem A 46
Walton Douglas 92 139-40 164 166 175
194 233
generalizations 54 242
warrant 5 53 80 81 87 106 106n8 109
122 130
defined 47
Weber Erik 205
Whatley Richard 10n5
Wick MR 178
Wigmore John H. 1 8 9 10n5 35 44 48
51 56 115 125
burden of persuasion 230-231
charts xii 9 31 53 57-58 78 120 138
231 233
evidence 157
inferences 56-57
on relevance 119 130 141
probative weight 130
risk of non-persuasion 230-231
science of proof 118 138
wild animals example 145-47
Wilma's pen example 97-98
witness
biased 46 57
commitment 151
credibility of 14 36
defined 12
examination of 152
expert 5
testimony 13 77 78 94 158
fallibility 150
Woods John 159
wrongful conviction cases 150-51
Zeleznikow John 103 104 141
zero-sum game 112