Rationality postulates: applying argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning

The current book chapter examines how to apply Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of nonmonotonic inference. The idea is that arguments are constructed using strict and defeasible inference rules, and that it is then examined how these arguments attack (or defeat) each other. The thus defined argumentation framework provides the basis for applying Dung-style semantics, yielding a number of extensions of arguments. As each of the constructed arguments has a conclusion, an extension of arguments has an associated extension of conclusions. It are these extensions of conclusions that we are interested in. In particular, we ask ourselves whether each of these extensions is (1) consistent, (2) closed under the strict inference rules and (3) free from undesired interference. We examine the current generation of techniques to satisfy these properties, and identify some research issues that are yet to be dealt with

Classical logic, argument and dialectic

A well studied instantiation of Dung's abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and/or human agents. However, features of existing formalisations of classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) that ensure satisfaction of rationality postulates, preclude applications of Cl-Arg that account for real-world dialectical uses of arguments by resource-bounded agents. This paper formalises dialectical classical logic argumentation that both satisfies these practical desiderata and is provably rational. In contrast to standard approaches to Cl-Arg we: 1) draw an epistemic distinction between an argument's premises accepted as true, and those assumed true for the sake of argument, so formalising the dialectical move whereby arguments\u2019 premises are shown to be inconsistent, and avoiding the foreign commitment problem that arises in dialogical applications; 2) provide an account of Cl-Arg suitable for real-world use by eschewing the need to check that an argument's premises are subset minimal and consistent, and identifying a minimal set of assumptions as to the arguments that must be constructed from a set of formulae in order to ensure that the outcome of evaluation is rational. We then illustrate our approach with a natural deduction proof theory for propositional classical logic that allows measurement of the \u2018depth\u2019 of an argument, such that the construction of depth-bounded arguments is a tractable problem, and each increase in depth naturally equates with an increase in the inferential capabilities of real-world agents. We also provide a resource-bounded argumentative characterisation of non-monotonic inference as defined by Brewka's Preferred Subtheories

Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut

Preprin

Rationality postulates: applying argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning

The current book chapter examines how to apply Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of nonmonotonic inference. The idea is that arguments are constructed using strict and defeasible inference rules, and that it is then examined how these arguments attack (or defeat) each other. The thus defined argumentation framework provides the basis for applying Dung-style semantics, yielding a number of extensions of arguments. As each of the constructed arguments has a conclusion, an extension of arguments has an associated extension of conclusions. It are these extensions of conclusions that we are interested in. In particular, we ask ourselves whether each of these extensions is (1) consistent, (2) closed under the strict inference rules and (3) free from undesired interference. We examine the current generation of techniques to satisfy these properties, and identify some research issues that are yet to be dealt with

On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics

This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 – Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin

Design and development of a new course on Ethics in Aerospace Engineering

The competence to apply ethics in the development of new technologies is currently not addressed in university programs for aerospace engineering at the national level. Therefore, the purpose of this project is to guide future aerospace engineers in making ethical decisions. This project is divided into three different parts. In the first one, different teaching methodologies are studied. Active learning, which includes case studies, is concluded to be the most effective for students. In the second part, using these methodologies, the syllabus for an elective on ethics for the aerospace engineering curriculum has been developed. This syllabus covers important moral concepts in the design, development, testing, and certification processes, as well as the concept of responsibility. Finally, in the third part, a teaching guide has been developed, divided into each session, to carry out the instruction of this course. After all, this project has successfully fulfilled all its initial requirements and developed a course that is ready to be taught