A literature review. Introduction to the special issue

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 CHIST-ERA/0002/2019Argumentation schemes [35, 80, 91] are a relatively recent notion that continues an extremely ancient debate on one of the foundations of human reasoning, human comprehension, and obviously human argumentation, i.e., the topics. To understand the revolutionary nature of Walton’s work on this subject matter, it is necessary to place it in the debate that it continues and contributes to, namely a view of logic that is much broader than the formalistic perspective that has been adopted from the 20th century until nowadays. With his book Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, Walton attempted to start a dialogue between three different fields or views on human reasoning – one (argumentation theory) very recent, one (dialectics) very ancient and with a very long tradition, and one (formal logic) relatively recent, but dominating in philosophy. Argumentation schemes were proposed as dialectical instruments, in the sense that they represented arguments not only as formal relations, but also as pragmatic inferences, as they at the same time depend on what the interlocutors share and accept in a given dialogical circumstance, and affect their dialogical relation. In this introduction, the notion of argumentation scheme will be analyzed in detail, showing its different dimensions and its defining features which make them an extremely useful instrument in Artificial Intelligence. This theoretical background will be followed by a literature review on the uses of the schemes in computing, aimed at identifying the most important areas and trends, the most promising proposals, and the directions of future research.publishersversionpublishe

Формализация споров о законодательных инициативах в виде практического рассуждения

In this paper the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference is used for formally reconstructing two legal debates about law-making proposal: an opinion of a legal scholar on a Dutch legislative proposal and a US common-law judicial decision on whether an existing common law rule should be followed or distinguished. Both debates are formalized as practical reasoning, with versions of the argument schemes from good and bad consequences. These case studies aim to contribute to an understanding of the logical structure of debates about law-making proposals. Another aim of the case studies is to provide new benchmark examples for comparing alternative formal frameworks for modelling argumentation. In particular, this paper aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinctions between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.В этой статье структура ASPIC+ для аргументационного вывода используется для формальной реконструкции двух дискуссий о законодательных инициативах: позиции правоведа по поводу одного голландского законопроекта и решения общегражданского суда США о том, надлежит ли вынести постановление на основе существующей нормы или необходимо выделить в ней исключения. Обе дискуссии формализованы как практические рассуждения на основе версий использования схемы от позитивных и негативных последствий. Эти два случая вносят вклад в понимание логической структуры дискуссий о законодательных инициативах. Другая цель исследования этих двух случаев — сформулировать новые показательные примеры в целях сравнения альтернативных формальных структур для моделирования аргументации. В частности, эта статья нацелена на то, чтобы проиллюстрировать полезность двух характеристик структуры ASPIC+: возможность различать между дедуктивными и отменяемыми правилами и возможность выразить произвольные упорядочивания аргументов на основе отношения предпочтения

Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation

A formal two-phase model of democratic policy deliberation is presented, in which in the first phase sufficient and necessary criteria for proposals to be accepted are determined (the ‘acceptable’ criteria) and in the second phase proposals are made and evaluated in light of the acceptable criteria resulting from the first phase. Such a separation gives the discussion a clear structure and prevents time and resources from being wasted on evaluating arguments for proposals based on unacceptable criteria. Argument schemes for both phases are defined and formalised in a logical framework for structured argumentation. The process of deliberation is abstracted from and it is assumed that both deliberation phases result in a set of arguments and attack and defeat relations between them. The acceptability status of criteria and proposals within the resulting argumentation framework is then evaluated using preferred semantics. For cases where preferences are required to choose between proposals, inference rules for deriving preferences between sets from an ordering of their elements are given.MediamaticsElectrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Scienc