-
19
-
88Witness testimony evidence: argumentation, artificial intelligence, and 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
-
69Media 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
-
111Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoningL. Erlbaum Associates. 1996.This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each.
-
139Slippery slope argumentsOxford University Press. 1992.A "slippery slope argument" is a type of argument in which a first step is taken and a series of inextricable consequences follow, ultimately leading to a disastrous outcome. Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking treat the slippery slope argument as a fallacy. Walton argues that used correctly in some cases, they can be a reasonable type of argument to shift a burden of proof in a critical discussion, while in other cases they are used incorrectly. Walton identifies and analyzes…Read more
-
29Begging the question: circular reasoning as a tactic of argumentationGreenwood Press. 1991.This book offers a new theory of begging the question as an informal fallacy, within a pragmatic framework of reasoned dialogue as a normative theory of critical argumentation. The fallacy of begging the question is analyzed as a systematic tactic to evade fulfillment of a legitimate burden of proof by the proponent of an argument. The technique uses a circular structure of argument to block the further progress of dialogue and, in particular, the capability of the respondent to ask legitimate c…Read more
-
134Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentationCambridge University Press. 1989.This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered ar…Read more
-
21Question-reply argumentationGreenwood Press. 1989.Walton's book is a study of several fallacies in informal logic. Focusing on question-answer dialogues, and committed to a pragmatic rather than a semantic approach, he attempts to generate criteria for evaluating good and bad questions and answers. The book contains a discussion of such well-recognized fallacies as many questions, black-or-white questions, loaded questions, circular arguments, question-begging assertions and epithets, ad hominem and tu quoque arguments, ignoratio elenchi, and r…Read more
-
85Informal fallacies: towards a theory of argument criticismsJohn Benjamins. 1987.The basic question of this monograph is: how should we go about judging arguments to be reasonable or unreasonable? Our concern will be with argument in a broad sense, with realistic arguments in natural language. The basic object will be to engage in a normative study of determining what factors, standards, or procedures should be adopted or appealed to in evaluating an argument as "good," "not-so-good," "open to criticism," "fallacious," and so forth. Hence our primary concern will be with the…Read more
-
185Begging the question as a pragmatic fallacySynthese 100 (1). 1994.The aim of this paper is to make it clear how and why begging the question should be seen as a pragmatic fallacy which can only be properly evaluated in a context of dialogue. Included in the paper is a review of the contemporary literature on begging the question that shows the gradual emergence over the past twenty years or so of the dialectical conception of this fallacy. A second aim of the paper is to investigate a number of general problems raised by the pragmatic framework.
-
Informal fallacyIn Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press. pp. 373--376. 1995.
-
10Analogical ArgumentsIn Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Blackwell. 2013.
-
982Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal InterpretationLaw and Philosophy 37 (1): 69-115. 2018.The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal int…Read more
-
1340Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidencePragmatics and Cognition 19 (1): 92-116. 2011.Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines his conclusion and what…Read more
-
827Emotive Language in ArgumentationCambridge University Press. 2014.This book analyzes the uses of emotive language and redefinitions from pragmatic, dialectical, epistemic and rhetorical perspectives, investigating the relationship between emotions, persuasion and meaning, and focusing on the implicit dimension of the use of a word and its dialectical effects. It offers a method for evaluating the persuasive and manipulative uses of emotive language in ordinary and political discourse. Through the analysis of political speeches and legal arguments, the book off…Read more
-
45Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty GeneralizationArgumentation 13 (2): 161-182. 1999.This paper makes a case for a refined look at the so- called âfallacy of hasty generalizationâ by arguing that this expression is an umbrella term for two fallacies already distinguished by Aristotle. One is the fallacy of generalizing in an inappropriate way from a particular instance to a universal generalization containing a âfor all xâ quantification. The other is the secundum quid (âin a certain respectâ) fallacy of moving to a conclusion that is supposed to be a universal gener…Read more
-
78Building a System for Finding Objections to an ArgumentArgumentation 26 (3): 369-391. 2012.Abstract This paper addresses the role that argumentation schemes and argument visualization software tools can play in helping to find and counter objections to a given argument one is confronted with. Based on extensive analysis of features of the argumentation in these two examples, a practical four-step method of finding objections to an argument is set out. The study also applies the Carneades Argumentation System to the task of finding objections to an argument, and shows how this system…Read more
-
75How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogueArtificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3): 177-239. 2006.In this paper it is shown how tools developed in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence can be applied to the development of a new dialectical analysis of the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. These tools are developed, modified and used to formulate dialogue pre-conditions, defining conditions and post-conditions for the speech act of making a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. The defining conditions set out what is required for a move in a dialogue to cou…Read more
-
424Presumptions in Legal ArgumentationRatio Juris 25 (3): 271-300. 2012.In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices that may be useful in …Read more
-
47Poisoning the WellArgumentation 20 (3): 273-307. 2006.In this paper it is shown is that although poisoning the well has generally been treated as a species of ad hominem fallacy, when you try to analyze the fallacy using ad hominem schemes, even by supplementing with related schemes like argument from position to know, the analysis ultimately fails. The main argument of the paper is taken up with proving this negative claim by applying these schemes to examples of arguments associated with the fallacy of poisoning the well. Although there is a posi…Read more
-
86Are Some Modus Ponens Arguments Deductively Invalid?Informal Logic 22 (1). 2001.This article concerns the structure of defeasible arguments like: 'If Bob has red spots, Bob has the measles; Bob has red spots; therefore Bob has the measles.' The issue is whether such arguments have the form of modus ponens or not. Either way there is a problem. If they don't have the form of modus ponens, the common opinion to the contrary taught in leading logic textbooks is wrong. But if they do have the form of modus ponens, doubts are raised about the conventional dogma that all argument…Read more
-
141Why Fallacies Appear to be Better Arguments Than They AreInformal Logic 30 (2): 159-184. 2010.This paper offers a solution to the problem of understanding how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by “seeming to be valid”, or (better) appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation of how fallacies are deceptive is based on heuristics and paraschemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem that sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, this jump overlooks …Read more
-
16Epstein's The Semantic Foundations of Logic vol. I, Propositional Logics vol. II, Predicate LogicInformal Logic 19 (2). 1999.
-
686Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility ConditionsArgumentation 31 (2): 221-243. 2017.The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent…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 |