•  3
    REVIEWS-A Theory of Argument
    with M. Vorobej
    Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13 (2): 245-246. 2007.
  •  51
    Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (3): 217-246. 2010.
    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 clear…Read more
  •  29
    "Can," Determinism and Modal Logic
    Modern Schoolman 52 (4): 381-390. 1975.
  •  5
    Introduction to ‘Philosophy and Argumentum ad Hominem’
    Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 12 (3-4): 24-24. 1993.
  •  656
    We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a proble…Read more
  •  30
    Rules for Plausible Reasoning
    Informal Logic 14 (1). 1992.
    This article evaluates whether Rescher's rules for plausible reasoning or other rules used in artificial intelligence for "confidence factors" can be extended to deal with arguments where the linked-convergent distinction is important
  •  20
    Appeal to pity: A case study of theargumentum ad misericordiam (review)
    Argumentation 9 (5): 769-784. 1995.
    The appeal to pity, orargumentum ad misericordiam, has traditionally been classified by the logic textbooks as an informal fallacy. The particular case studied in this article is a description of a series of events in 1990–91 during the occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. A fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah had a pivotal effect on the U.S. decision to invade Kuwait by testifying to a senate committee (while crying) that Iraqi soldiers had pulled babies out of incubators in a hospital…Read more
  •  43
    Abductive Reasoning
    University Alabama Press. 2004.
    This book examines three areas in which abductive reasoning is especially important: medicine, science, and law. The reader is introduced to abduction and shown how it has evolved historically into the framework of conventional wisdom in logic. Discussions draw upon recent techniques used in artificial intelligence, particularly in the areas of multi-agent systems and plan recognition, to develop a dialogue model of explanation. Cases of causal explanations in law are analyzed using abductive re…Read more
  •  40
    The witch hunt as a structure of argumentation
    Argumentation 10 (3): 389-407. 1996.
    The concept of a witch hunt is frequently invoked, in recent times, to describe a kind of procedure for deciding the guilt of a person against whom an accusation has been made. But what exactly is a witch hunt? In this paper, ten conditions are formulated as a cluster of properties characterizing the witch hunt as a framework in which arguments are used: (1) pressure of social forces, (2) stigmatization, (3) climate of fear, (4) resemblance to a fair trial, (5) use of simulated evidence, (6) sim…Read more
  •  82
    A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi
    with Thomas F. Gordon
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1): 37-56. 2012.
    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
  •  7
    New Methods for Evaluating Arguments
    Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15 (4): 44-65. 1996.
  •  79
    The recent redefinition of 'planet' that excludes Pluto as a planet led to controversy that provides a case study of how competing scientific definitions can be supported by characteristic types of evidence. An argumentation scheme from Hastings is used to analyze argument from verbal classification as a form of inference used in rational argumentation. The Toulmin-style format is compared to more recently developed ways of modeling such cases that stem from advances in argumentation technology …Read more
  •  91
    Dialogue theory, although it has ancient roots, was put forward in the 1970s in logic as astructure that can be useful for helping to evaluate argumentation and informal fallacies.Recently, however, it has been taken up as a broader subject of investigation in computerscience. This paper surveys both the historical and philosophical background of dialoguetheory and the latest research initiatives on dialogue theory in computer science. The main components of dialogue theory are briefly explained…Read more
  •  53
    Using persuasive definitions and persuasive language generally to put a spin on an argument has often held to be suspicious, if not deceptive or even fallacious. However, if the purpose of a persuasive definition is to persuade, and if rational persuasion can be a legitimate goal, putting forward a persuasive definition can have a legitimate basis in some cases. To clarify this basis, the old subject of definitions is reconfigured into a new dialectical framework in which, it is argued, a defini…Read more
  •  20
    Justification of Argumentation Schemes
    Australasian Journal of Logic 3 1-13. 2005.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, especially defeasible ones like argument from expert opinion, that have proved troublesome to view deductively or inductively. Much practical work has already been done on argumentation schemes, proving their worth in A1 [19], but more precise investigations are needed to formalize their structures. The problem posed in this paper is what form justification of a given scheme, as having a certain p…Read more
  •  99
    A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-2007
    Informal Logic 27 (1): 135-147. 2007.
    A Bibliography of Douglas Walton’s Published Works, 1971-20
  •  840
    The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum .
    with F. Macagno
    Argumentation 28 (3): 203-228. 2007.
    Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies
  •  24
    The importance of speech acts for analyzing and evaluating argumentation in cases where it is suspected that the ad baculum fallacy has been committed is demonstrated in this paper by using a typical textbook example of this fallacy. It is shown how the argument in the example can be analyzed and evaluated using the devices of Gricean implicature and indirect speech acts. It is shown how these two devices can be applied to extrapolate the evidence furnished by the text and dialectical context of…Read more
  •  14
    Burden of Proof in a Modified Hamblin Dialogue System
    Informal Logic 31 (4): 279-304. 2011.
    In his book on fallacies, Hamblin built a very simple system for argumentation in dialogue he called the Why Because System with Questions. In his discussion of this system, he replaced the concept of burden of proof with a simpler concept of initiative, which could be described as something like getting the upper hand as the argumentation moves back and forth in the dialogue between the one party and the other. No doubt he realized that the concept of burden of proof was too complex a matter to…Read more
  •  62
    Introduction: Special Issue on Charles Hamblin
    with Ralph Johnson
    Informal Logic 31 (4): 279-304. 2011.
    It is unfortunate that Hamblin’s contributions do not get him the credit he deserves for his remarkable achievements. Although his contributions to philosophy are well enough recognized, and his early contributions to computing have been acknowledged, it seems strange that his work has not been widely enough recognized for the interdisciplinary effect it has had. There has been a feedback loop whereby his theories on formal dialogue systems and imperatives were taken up in argumentation, applied…Read more
  •  3264
    Argument Diagramming in Logic, Artificial Intelligence, and Law
    with Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno
    The Knowledge Engineering Review 22 (1): 87-109. 2007.
    In this paper, we present a survey of the development of the technique of argument diagramming covering not only the fields in which it originated - informal logic, argumentation theory, evidence law and legal reasoning – but also more recent work in applying and developing it in computer science and artificial intelligence. Beginning with a simple example of an everyday argument, we present an analysis of it visualised as an argument diagram constructed using a software tool. In the context of …Read more
  •  381
    Manipulation of quotation, shown to be a common tactic of argumentation in this paper, is associated with fallacies like wrenching from context, hasty generalization, equivocation, accent, the straw man fallacy, and ad hominem arguments. Several examples are presented from everyday speech, legislative debates and trials. Analysis using dialog models explains the critical defects of argumentation illustrated in each of the examples. In the formal dialog system CB, a proponent and respondent take …Read more
  •  41
    Action theory
    Philosophia 8 (4): 719-740. 1979.
  •  474
    Wrenching from Context: The Manipulation of Commitments
    Argumentation 24 (3): 283-317. 2010.
    This article analyses the fallacy of wrenching from context, using the dialectical notions of commitment and implicature as tools. The data, a set of key examples, is used to sharpen the conceptual borderlines around the related fallacies of straw man, accent, misquotation, and neglect of qualifications. According to the analysis, the main characteristics of wrenching from context are the manipulation of the meaning of the other’s statement through devices such as the use of misquotations, selec…Read more