A new use case for argumentation support tools:supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases

In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about the validity of their arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases

Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2017: The Thirtieth Annual Conference

The proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2017. For three decades, the JURIX conferences have been held under the auspices of the Dutch Foundation for Legal Knowledge Based Systems (www.jurix.nl). In the time, it has become a European conference in terms of the diverse venues throughout Europe and the nationalities of participants

Argumentation schemes in AI and Law

In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.</jats:p

Argument schemes for discussing Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases

In this paper two discussions between experts about Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. The usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, two new schemes for interpretation arguments and for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates about the validity of arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases

The Philosophical Foundations of PLEN: A Protocol-theoretic Logic of Epistemic Norms

In this dissertation, I defend the protocol-theoretic account of epistemic norms. The protocol-theoretic account amounts to three theses: (i) There are norms of epistemic rationality that are procedural; epistemic rationality is at least partially defined by rules that restrict the possible ways in which epistemic actions and processes can be sequenced, combined, or chosen among under varying conditions. (ii) Epistemic rationality is ineliminably defined by procedural norms; procedural restrictions provide an irreducible unifying structure for even apparently non-procedural prescriptions and normative expressions, and they are practically indispensable in our cognitive lives. (iii) These procedural epistemic norms are best analyzed in terms of the protocol (or program) constructions of dynamic logic. I defend (i) and (ii) at length and in multi-faceted ways, and I argue that they entail a set of criteria of adequacy for models of epistemic dynamics and abstract accounts of epistemic norms. I then define PLEN, the protocol-theoretic logic of epistemic norms. PLEN is a dynamic logic that analyzes epistemic rationality norms with protocol constructions interpreted over multi-graph based models of epistemic dynamics. The kernel of the overall argument of the dissertation is showing that PLEN uniquely satisfies the criteria defended; none of the familiar, rival frameworks for modeling epistemic dynamics or normative concepts are capable of satisfying these criteria to the same degree as PLEN. The overarching argument of the dissertation is thus a theory-preference argument for PLEN

Argument schemes for discussing Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases

In this paper two discussions between experts about Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. The usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, two new schemes for interpretation arguments and for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates about the validity of arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases