-
8Question-Asking FallaciesIn Michel Meyer (ed.), Questions and questioning, W. De Gruyter. pp. 195-221. 1988.
-
17Power and Causal PossibilityCanadian Journal of Philosophy 3 (2). 1973.In ‘Can and Might’, Professor K. W. Rankin has presented three arguments that purport to refute the equivalence, ‘A is causally possible for P if and only if A is within P's power’. The first two arguments are attributed to Richard Taylor, and the third is Professor Rankin's own. I will argue that none of these three arguments effectively refutes the above equivalence. My arguments are not to be construed as simply a rebuttal of Professor Rankin's paper since he also appears to have some doubts …Read more
-
531Interpreting Straw Man ArgumentationSpringer. 2017.This book shows how research in linguistic pragmatics, philosophy of language, and rhetoric can be connected through argumentation to analyze a recognizably common strategy used in political and everyday conversation, namely the distortion of another’s words in an argumentative exchange. Straw man argumentation refers to the modification of a position by misquoting, misreporting or wrenching the original speaker’s statements from their context in order to attack them more easily or more effectiv…Read more
-
1301A theory of presumption for everyday argumentationPragmatics and Cognition 15 (2): 313-346. 2007.The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption …Read more
-
16Profiles of Dialogue for AmphibolyInformal Logic 40 (1): 3-45. 2020.Amphiboly has been widely recognized, starting from the time of Aristotle, as an informal fallacy arising from grammatical ambiguity. This paper applies the profiles of dialogue tool to the fallacy of amphiboly, providing a five-step evidence-based procedure whereby a syntactically ambiguous sentence uttered in a natural language text can be evaluated as committing a fallacy of amphiboly. A user applies the tool to a natural language text by comparing a descriptive graph, representing how the ar…Read more
-
515Emotive Meaning in Political ArgumentationInformal Logic 39 (3): 229-261. 2019.Donald Trump’s speeches and messages are characterized by terms that are commonly referred to as “thick” or “emotive,” meaning that they are characterized by a tendency to be used to generate emotive reactions. This paper investigates how emotive meaning is related to emotions, and how it is generated or manipulated. Emotive meaning is analyzed as an evaluative conclusion that results from inferences triggered by the use of a term, which can be represented and assessed using argumentation scheme…Read more
-
421A classification system for argumentation schemesArgument and Computation 6 (3): 219-245. 2016.This paper explains the importance of classifying argumentation schemes, and outlines how schemes are being used in current research in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics on argument mining. It provides a survey of the literature on scheme classification. What are so far generally taken to represent a set of the most widely useful defeasible argumentation schemes are surveyed and explained systematically, including some that are difficult to classify. A new classification syst…Read more
-
30When expert opinion evidence goes wrongArtificial Intelligence and Law 27 (4): 369-401. 2019.This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combi…Read more
-
29Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem ArgumentationStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1): 93-114. 2018.This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity o…Read more
-
31Representing argumentation schemes with Constraint Handling RulesArgument and Computation 9 (2): 91-119. 2018.We present a high-level declarative programming language for representing argumentation schemes, where schemes represented in this language can be easily validated by domain experts, including developers of argumentation schemes in informal logic and philosophy, and serve as executable specifications for automatically constructing arguments, when applied to a set of assumptions. This new rule language for representing argumentation schemes is validated by using it to represent twenty representa…Read more
-
18Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstancesArgument and Computation 7 (2-3): 155-173. 2016.
-
23Analogical Arguments in Persuasive and Deliberative ContextsInformal Logic 38 (2): 213-262. 2018.This paper uses argumentation tools such as argument diagrams and argumentation schemes to analyze four examples of argument from analogy, and argues that to proceed from there to evaluating these arguments, features of the context of dialogue need to be taken into account. The evidence drawn from these examples is taken to support a pragmatic approach to studying argument from analogy, meaning that identifying the logical form of the argument by building an argument diagram of the premises and …Read more
-
30Plausible Argumentation in Eikotic Arguments: The Ancient Weak Versus Strong Man ExampleArgumentation 33 (1): 45-74. 2019.In this paper it is shown how plausible reasoning of the kind illustrated in the ancient Greek example of the weak and strong man can be analyzed and evaluated using a procedure in which the pro evidence is weighed against the con evidence using formal, computational argumentation tools. It is shown by means of this famous example how plausible reasoning is based on an audience’s recognition of situations of a type they are familiar with as normal and comprehensible in their shared common knowle…Read more
-
182Classification and Ambiguity: the Role of Definition in a Conceptual SystemStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 16 (29). 2009.With the advent of the semantic web, the problem of ambiguity is becoming more and more urging. Semantic analysis is necessary for explaining and resolving some sorts of ambiguity by inquiring into the relation between possibilities of predication and definition of a concept in order to solve problems such as interpretation and ambiguity. If computing is now approaching such problems of linguistic analysis, what is worth inquiring into is how the development of linguistic studies can be useful f…Read more
-
8How to Refute an Argument Using Artifical IntelligenceStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36). 2011.
-
515Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular ApproachArgumentation 32 (4): 519-547. 2018.This paper compares current ways of modeling the inferential structure of practical reasoning arguments, and proposes a new approach in which it is regarded in a modular way. Practical reasoning is not simply seen as reasoning from a goal and a means to an action using the basic argumentation scheme. Instead, it is conceived as a complex structure of classificatory, evaluative, and practical inferences, which is formalized as a cluster of three types of distinct and interlocked argumentation sch…Read more
-
7Erratum to: Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systemsAI and Society 32 (4): 497-498. 2017.
-
27Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systemsAI and Society 32 (4): 483-496. 2017.In this paper we show that an essential aspect of solving the problem of uncritical acceptance of expert opinions that is at the root of the ad verecundiam fallacy is the need to disentangle argument from expert opinion from another kind of appeal to authority. Formal and computational argumentation systems enable us to analyze the fault in which an error has occurred by virtue of a failure to meet one or more of the requirements of the argumentation scheme from argument from expert opinion. We …Read more
-
215An arugmentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpertationArtificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1): 51-91. 2016.This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes…Read more
-
21Evaluating Appeals to Popular OpinionInquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 20 (1): 33-45. 2000.There is a tendency to swing to extremes in evaluating arguments based on appeal to popular opinion. Traditional logic textbooks have portrayed the argumentum ad populum, or appeal to popular opinion, as a fallacy. In contrast, many arguments based on appeal to public opinion in marketing of commercial products do not seem all that unreasonable. Three cases of commercial ads are studied. The problem posed is that of building an objective structure for evaluating such arguments that does not swin…Read more
-
19We present a series of realistic examples of deliberation and discuss how they can form the basis for building a typology of deliberation dialogues. The observations from our examples are used to suggest that argumentation researchers and philosophers have been thinking about deliberation in overly simplistic ways. We argue that to include all the kinds of argumentation that make up realistic deliberations, it is necessary to distinguish between different kinds of deliberations. We propose a mod…Read more
-
78Fundamentals of Critical ArgumentationCambridge University Press. 2005.Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation presents the basic tools for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of common arguments for beginners. The book teaches by using examples of arguments in dialogues, both in the text itself and in the exercises. Examples of controversial legal, political, and ethical arguments are analyzed. Illustrating the most common kinds of arguments, the book also explains how to evaluate each kind by critical questioning. Douglas Walton shows how arguments can be…Read more
-
Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation and the LawCambridge University Press. 2007.Recent work in artificial intelligence has increasingly turned to argumentation as a rich, interdisciplinary area of research that can provide new methods related to evidence and reasoning in the area of law. Douglas Walton provides an introduction to basic concepts, tools and methods in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence as applied to the analysis and evaluation of witness testimony. He shows how witness testimony is by its nature inherently fallible and sometimes subject to disas…Read more
-
1Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and RhetoricCambridge University Press. 2007.Media argumentation is a powerful force in our lives. From political speeches to television commercials to war propaganda, it can effectively mobilize political action, influence the public, and market products. This book presents a new and systematic way of thinking about the influence of mass media in our lives, showing the intersection of media sources with argumentation theory, informal logic, computational theory, and theories of persuasion. Using a variety of case studies that represent ar…Read more
-
1Informal Logic: A Pragmatic ApproachCambridge University Press. 2008.Second edition of the introductory guidebook to the basic principles of constructing sound arguments and criticising bad ones. Non-technical in approach, it is based on 186 examples, which Douglas Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, discusses and evaluates in clear, illustrative detail. Walton explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical re…Read more
-
11Using conversation policies to solve problems of ambiguity in argumentation and artificial intelligencePragmatics and Cognition 14 (1): 3-36. 2006.This investigation joins recent research on problems with ambiguity in two fields, argumentation and computing. In argumentation, there is a concern with fallacies arising from ambiguity, including equivocation and amphiboly. In computing, the development of agent communication languages is based on conversation policies that make it possible to have information exchanges on the internet, as well as other forms of dialogue like persuasion and negotiation, in which ambiguity is a problem. Because…Read more
Areas of Specialization
Logic and Philosophy of Logic |
Philosophy of Computing and Information |
Areas of Interest
Philosophy of Action |
Philosophy of Law |
Philosophy of Computing and Information |