nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Persuasive Argumentation and Epistemic Attitudes

verfasst von : Carlo Proietti, Antonio Yuste-Ginel

Erschienen in: Dynamic Logic. New Trends and Applications

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper studies the relation between persuasive argumentation and the speaker’s epistemic attitude. Dung-style abstract argumentation and dynamic epistemic logic provide the necessary tools to characterize the notion of persuasion. Within abstract argumentation, persuasive argumentation has been previously studied from a game-theoretic perspective. These approaches are blind to the fact that, in real-life situations, the epistemic attitude of the speaker determines which set of arguments will be disclosed by her in the context of a persuasive dialogue. This work is a first step to fill this gap. For this purpose we extend one of the logics of Schwarzentruber et al. with dynamic operators, designed to capture communicative phenomena. A complete axiomatization for the new logic via reduction axioms is provided. Within the new framework, a distinction between actual persuasion and persuasion from the speaker’s perspective is made. Finally, we explore the relationship between the two notions.

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!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel A Four-Valued Hybrid Logic with Non-dual Modal Operators

Nächstes Kapitel The Trace Modality

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

See [14] for this notion of dialectics and [1] for its relation to argumentation frameworks.

Nevertheless, some papers [8, 9] have combined tools from propositional dynamic logic and abstract argumentation. We will come back to them in the conclusions (Sect. 5).

PI stands for positive introspection and GNI for generalized negative introspection. The latter captures standard negative introspection as a special case where the indexes i and j are the same.

The operation \((\cdot )^{a!}\) can be understood as a special case of public substitution [15, 22]. From the perspective of dynamic awareness logic [2], the same action can be understood in terms of the consider action, with the only difference that here arguments (and not formulas) are the content of announcements. A detailed comparison between the three operations is out of the scope of this paper.

In Table 2 \(\delta [\varphi /\psi ]\) is the result of substituting one or more occurrences of \(\psi \) in \(\delta \) by\(\varphi \).

Given an AF \((A,\rightsquigarrow )\) and two sets of arguments \(B,C\subseteq A\), the attack relation is lifted from single arguments to sets of arguments as follows: \(B\rightsquigarrow C\) iff \(\exists b\in B,\exists c \in C (b\rightsquigarrow c)\).

Beirlaen, M., Heyninck, J., Pardo, P., Straßer, C.: Argument strength in formal argumentation. IfCoLog J. Log. Their Appl. 5(3), 629–675 (2018)MathSciNet

van Benthem, J., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: The dynamics of awareness. Synthese 177(1), 5–27 (2010)CrossRef

Blackburn, P., De Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)MATH

Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11CrossRefMATH

Caminada, M., Sakama, C.: On the issue of argumentation and informedness. In: Otake, M., Kurahashi, S., Ota, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2015. LNCS, vol. 10091, pp. 317–330. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_22CrossRef

Caminada, M.W., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRef

van Ditmarsch, H., van Der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5839-4CrossRefMATH

Doutre, S., Herzig, A., Perrussel, L.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In: Baral, C., De Giacomo, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) Fourteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press (2014)

Doutre, S., Maffre, F., McBurney, P.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation: adding and removing arguments. In: Benferhat, S., Tabia, K., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10351, pp. 295–305. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60045-1_32CrossRef

10.

Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRef

11.

Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artif. Intell. 34(1), 39–76 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRef

12.

Groarke, L.: Informal logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2017 edn. (2017)

13.

Grossi, D., van der Hoek, W.: Justified beliefs by justified arguments. In: Baral, C., De Giacomo, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) Fourteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press (2014)

14.

Johnson, R.H.: Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Routledge, New York (2012)CrossRef

15.

Kooi, B.: Expressivity and completeness for public update logics via reduction axioms. J. Appl. Non-Classical Log. 17(2), 231–253 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRef

16.

Proietti, C.: The dynamics of group polarization. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds.) LORI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10455, pp. 195–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14CrossRef

17.

Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 321–339. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_16CrossRef

18.

Sakama, C.: Dishonest arguments in debate games. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Computational Models of Argument, pp. 177–184. IOS Press (2012)

19.

Schwarzentruber, F., Vesic, S., Rienstra, T.: Building an epistemic logic for argumentation. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7519, pp. 359–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_28CrossRef

20.

Shi, C., Smets, S., Velázquez-Quesada, F.: Argument-based belief in topological structures. In: Lang, J. (ed.) Proceedings TARK 2017, vol. 251. Open Publishing Association (2017)

21.

Shi, C., Smets, S., Velázquez-Quesada, F.R.: Beliefs supported by binary arguments. J. Appl. Non-Classical Log. 28(2–3), 165–188 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRef

22.

Van Benthem, J., Van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Inf. Comput. 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRef

23.

Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)

24.

Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)

Titel: Persuasive Argumentation and Epistemic Attitudes
verfasst von: Carlo Proietti
Antonio Yuste-Ginel
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Dynamic Logic. New Trends and Applications
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38807-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-38808-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38808-9_7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"