Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Argumentation (5)
- Case-based Reasoning (2)
- Argument Schemes (1)
- Argumentation from Classification (1)
- Artificial Intelligence (1)
-
- Burden of Proof (1)
- Computational dialectics (1)
- Critical Questions (1)
- Dialogue theory (1)
- Discovering inconsistency (1)
- Examination dialogue (1)
- Expert Witness (1)
- Expert opinion testimony (1)
- Fallacies (1)
- Law (1)
- Legal Persuasian Dialogues (1)
- Legal Proceedings (1)
- Legal Reasoning Support Systems (1)
- Policy (1)
- Stories (1)
- Testimony (1)
- Visualization (1)
- Witness testimony (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Carneades Reconstruction Of Popov V Hayashi, Thomas F. Gordon, Douglas Walton
A Carneades Reconstruction Of Popov V Hayashi, Thomas F. Gordon, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.
Similarity, Precedent And Argument From Analogy, Douglas Walton
Similarity, Precedent And Argument From Analogy, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
In this paper, it is shown (1) that there are two schemes for argument from analogy that seem to be competitors but are not, (2) how one of them is based on a distinctive type of similarity premise, (3) how to analyze the notion of similarity using story schemes illustrated by some cases, (4) how arguments from precedent are based on arguments from analogy, and in many instances arguments from classification, and (5) that when similarity is defined by means of episode schemes, we can get a clearer idea of how it integrates with the use of argument from classification …
Argument From Expert Opinion As Legal Evidence: Critical Questions And Admissibility Criteria Of Expert Testimony In The American Legal System, David M. Godden, Douglas Walton
Argument From Expert Opinion As Legal Evidence: Critical Questions And Admissibility Criteria Of Expert Testimony In The American Legal System, David M. Godden, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.
Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework For Critically Questioning An Expert Opinion, Douglas Walton
Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework For Critically Questioning An Expert Opinion, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
Recent work in argumentation theory (Walton and Krabbe, 1995; Walton, 2005) and artificial intelligence (Bench-Capon, 1992, 2003; Cawsey, 1992; McBurney and Parsons, 2002; Bench-Capon and Prakken, 2005) uses types of dialogue as contexts of argument use. This paper provides an analysis of a special type called examination dialogue, in which one party questions another party, sometimes critically or even antagonistically, to try to find out what that party knows about something. This type of dialogue is most prominent in law and in both legal and non-legal arguments based on expert opinion. It is also central to dialogue systems for questioning …
Dialogues About The Burden Of Proof, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton
Dialogues About The Burden Of Proof, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton
CRRAR Publications
This paper analyses the phenomenon of a shift of the burden of proof in legal persuasion dialogues. Some sample dialogues are analysed of types of situations where such a shift may occur, viz. reasoning with defeasible rules, reasoning with argumentation schemes and reasoning with mere presumptions. It is argued that whether a shift in the burden of proof occurs can itself become the subject of dispute and it is shown how a dialogue game protocol for persuasion can be extended to let it regulate persuasion dialogues about the burden of proof. It is also shown that dialogues about the burden …
Critical Questions In Computational Models Of Legal Argument, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon
Critical Questions In Computational Models Of Legal Argument, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon
CRRAR Publications
Two recent computational models of legal argumentation, by Verheij and Gordon respectively, have interpreted critical questions as premises of arguments that can be defeated using Pollock’s concepts of undercutters and rebuttals. Using the scheme for arguments from expert opinion as an example, this paper evaluates and compares these two models of critical questions from the perspective of argumentation theory and competing legal theories about proof standardsfor defeating presumptions. The applicable proof standard is found to be a legal issue subject to argument. Verheij’smodel is shown to have problems because the proof stan-dards it applies to different kinds of premises are …