Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Argumentation 3/2016

04.11.2015

Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction

verfasst von: Douglas Walton

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Even though tools for identifying and analyzing arguments are now in wide use in the field of argumentation studies, so far there is a paucity of resources for evaluating real arguments, aside from using deductive logic or Bayesian rules that apply to inductive arguments. In this paper it is shown that recent developments in artificial intelligence in the area of computational systems for modeling defeasible argumentation reveal a different approach that is currently making interesting progress. It is shown how these systems provide the general outlines for a system of argument evaluation that can be applied to legal arguments as well as everyday conversational arguments to assist a user to evaluate an argument.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
CAS is open source software, available at http://​carneades.​github.​com/​.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Bench-Capon, T. 2002. Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22(3): 231–245. Bench-Capon, T. 2002. Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22(3): 231–245.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen, L.J. 1977. The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Cohen, L.J. 1977. The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen, L.J. 1992. An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cohen, L.J. 1992. An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Diels, H., and W. Kranz. 1952. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Diels, H., and W. Kranz. 1952. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–357.CrossRef Dung, P. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–357.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gagarin, M. 1994. Probability and persuasion: Plato and early Greek rhetoric. In Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. Ian Worthington, 46–68. London: Routledge. Gagarin, M. 1994. Probability and persuasion: Plato and early Greek rhetoric. In Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. Ian Worthington, 46–68. London: Routledge.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon, T.F. 2010. The Carneades Argumentation Support System, Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. C. Reed, and C. W. Tindale, London: College Publications. Gordon, T.F. 2010. The Carneades Argumentation Support System, Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. C. Reed, and C. W. Tindale, London: College Publications.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. P.E. Dunne, and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. P.E. Dunne, and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896.CrossRef Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G. Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G. Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hahn, U., A. Harris, and M. Oaksford. 2013. Rational argument, rational inference. Argument and Computation 4(1): 21–35.CrossRef Hahn, U., A. Harris, and M. Oaksford. 2013. Rational argument, rational inference. Argument and Computation 4(1): 21–35.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Zurück zum Zitat Harary, F. 1972. Graph Theory. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley. Harary, F. 1972. Graph Theory. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
Zurück zum Zitat Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1(2): 93–124.CrossRef Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1(2): 93–124.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75.CrossRef Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review 22: 87–109.CrossRef Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review 22: 87–109.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.CrossRef Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schiappa, E. 2002. Sophisticated modernism and the continuing importance of argument evaluation. In Arguing Communication and Culture: Selected Papers from the 12th NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 51–58. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Schiappa, E. 2002. Sophisticated modernism and the continuing importance of argument evaluation. In Arguing Communication and Culture: Selected Papers from the 12th NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 51–58. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
Zurück zum Zitat Thorsrud, H. 2002. Cicero on his academic predecessors: The Fallibilism of Arcesilaus and Carneades. Journal of the History of Philosophy 40: 1–18.CrossRef Thorsrud, H. 2002. Cicero on his academic predecessors: The Fallibilism of Arcesilaus and Carneades. Journal of the History of Philosophy 40: 1–18.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tindale, C. 2010. Reason’s Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia, South Carolina: The University of South Carolina Press. Tindale, C. 2010. Reason’s Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia, South Carolina: The University of South Carolina Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Tindale, C. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Tindale, C. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1982. Judgments of and by representativeness. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, ed. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1982. Judgments of and by representativeness. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, ed. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Eemeren, F., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Eemeren, F., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Gijzel, B., and H. Prakken. 2012. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument and Computation 3(1): 21–47.CrossRef Van Gijzel, B., and H. Prakken. 2012. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument and Computation 3(1): 21–47.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Verheij, B. 2000. Logic, Context and Valid Inference Or: Can There be a Logic of Law? Available on bart.verheij@metajur.unimaas.nl. Verheij, B. 2000. Logic, Context and Valid Inference Or: Can There be a Logic of Law? Available on bart.verheij@metajur.unimaas.nl.
Zurück zum Zitat Verheij, B. 2003. DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 319–346.CrossRef Verheij, B. 2003. DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 319–346.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Verheij, B. 2007. Argumentation support software: Boxes-and-arrows and beyond. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 187–208.CrossRef Verheij, B. 2007. Argumentation support software: Boxes-and-arrows and beyond. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 187–208.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park: Penn State Press. Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park: Penn State Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D. 2002. Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic 22(1): 19–46. Walton, D. 2002. Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic 22(1): 19–46.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D. 2008. Witness Testimony Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walton, D. 2008. Witness Testimony Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D. 2011. Teleological argumentation to and from motives. Law, Probability and Risk 10(2011): 203–223.CrossRef Walton, D. 2011. Teleological argumentation to and from motives. Law, Probability and Risk 10(2011): 203–223.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D. 2015. Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Cham: Springer. Walton, D. 2015. Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Cham: Springer.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D., C.W. Tindale, and T.F. Gordon. 2014. Applying recent argumentation methods to some ancient examples of plausible reasoning. Argumentation 28(1): 85–119.CrossRef Walton, D., C.W. Tindale, and T.F. Gordon. 2014. Applying recent argumentation methods to some ancient examples of plausible reasoning. Argumentation 28(1): 85–119.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Woods, J. 2013. Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference. London: College Publications. Woods, J. 2013. Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference. London: College Publications.
Metadaten
Titel
Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction
verfasst von
Douglas Walton
Publikationsdatum
04.11.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Argumentation / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9387-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Argumentation 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe