-
17Which of the fallacies are fallacies of relevance?Argumentation 6 (2): 237-250. 1992.This paper looks around among the major traditional fallacies — centering mainly around the so-called “gang of eighteen” — to discuss which of them should properly be classified as fallacies of relevance. The paper argues that four of these fallacies are fallacies primarily because they are failures of relevance in argumentation, while others are fallacies in a way that is more peripherally related to failures of relevance. Still others have an even more tangential relation to failures of releva…Read more
-
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
-
17Johnstone's View of Rhetorical and Dialectical ArgumentInformal Logic 21 (1). 2001.In the writings of Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. there can be found an evolving and gradually more sophisticated discussion of the relationship between rhetorical and dialectical argument. Johnstone's view on these matters was highly original, and at odds with the prevailing logical empiricism of the time, much like Toulmin's views on argumentation in The Uses of Argument (1958). In view of the rising importance of the issue of the relationship between rhetoric and informal logic, Johnstone's analysis…Read more
-
16Judging How Heavily a Question is LoadedInquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 17 (2): 53-71. 1997.
-
15Profiles 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
-
15Epstein's The Semantic Foundations of Logic vol. I, Propositional Logics vol. II, Predicate LogicInformal Logic 19 (2). 1999.
-
14Legal Reasoning and ArgumentationIn Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation, Springer Verlag. pp. 47-75. 2011.Wigmore thought that there was a science of proof underlying legal reasoning that could be displayed in any given case as a graphic sequence of argumentation from the evidence in the case leading to the ultimate probandum. Argumentation technology has now vindicated this approach by providing useful qualitative methods that can be applied to identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the pro and con arguments put forward by both sides in a trial. In this chapter, it is shown how to apply argumentati…Read more
-
14Burden of Proof in a Modified Hamblin Dialogue SystemInformal 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
-
14Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstancesArgument and Computation 7 (2-3): 155-173. 2016.
-
14Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in LawSpringer. 2005.Use of argumentation methods applied to legal reasoning is a relatively new field of study. The book provides a survey of the leading problems, and outlines how future research using argumentation-based methods show great promise of leading to useful solutions. The problems studied include not only these of argument evaluation and argument invention, but also analysis of specific kinds of evidence commonly used in law, like witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence and charac…Read more
-
13Aristotelian Dialectic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial IntelligenceIn Joseph Andrew Bjelde, David Merry & Christopher Roser (eds.), Essays on Argumentation in Antiquity, Springer. pp. 245-277. 2021.It is shown that Aristotelian dialectic can be analyzed as having two parts: a core formal model that has a formal dialogue structure and a set of ten definable supplementary characteristics that lie outside the core structure. Some current argumentation tools used in artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems are applied to the task of extending the core formal model to include the supplementary characteristics. Using these tools it is explained how the structure of a dialogue can be mappe…Read more
-
13Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and GeneralisationsArtificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3): 125-165. 2003.This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
-
13Erratum to: Computational dialectic and rhetorical invention (review)AI and Society 26 (1): 19-19. 2011.
-
12Legal Argumentation and EvidencePennsylvania State University Press. 2002.A leading expert in informal logic, Douglas Walton turns his attention in this new book to how reasoning operates in trials and other legal contexts, with special emphasis on the law of evidence. The new model he develops, drawing on methods of argumentation theory that are gaining wide acceptance in computing fields like artificial intelligence, can be used to identify, analyze, and evaluate specific types of legal argument. In contrast with approaches that rely on deductive and inductive logic…Read more
-
12Scare Tactics: Arguments That Appeal to Fear and ThreatsSpringer. 2000.Scare Tactics, the first book on the subject, provides a theory of the structure of reasoning used in fear and threat appeal argumentation. Such arguments come under the heading of the argumentum ad baculum, the `argument to the stick/club', traditionally treated as a fallacy in the logic textbooks. The new dialectical theory is based on case studies of many interesting examples of the use of these arguments in advertising, public relations, politics, international negotiations, and everyday arg…Read more
-
12Arguments From IgnorancePennsylvania State University Press. 1995._Arguments from Ignorance _explores the situations in which the argument from ignorance functions as a respectable form of reasoning and those in which it is indeed fallacious. Douglas Walton draws on everyday conversations on all kinds of practical matters in which the _argumentum ad ignorantiam _is used quite appropriately to infer conclusions. He also discusses the inappropriate use of this kind of argument, referring to various major case studies, including the Salem witchcraft trials, the M…Read more
-
12Pragmatic and Idealized Models of Knowledge and IgnoranceAmerican Philosophical Quarterly 42 (1). 2005.None
-
11New Methods for Evaluating ArgumentsInquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15 (4): 44-65. 1996.
-
11Appeal to Pity: Argumentum ad MisericordiamSUNY Press. 1997.A useful contribution to theories of argumentation and public address criticism, this book uses a pragmatic approach to understanding conversation as a way of elucidating the use of appeals to pity and sympathy.
-
11Appeal to Popular OpinionPennsylvania State University Press. 1999.Arguments from popular opinion have long been regarded with suspicion, and in most logic textbooks the _ad populum _argument is classified as a fallacy. Douglas Walton now asks whether this negative evaluation is always justified, particularly in a democratic system where decisions are based on majority opinion. In this insightful book, Walton maintains that there is a genuine type of argumentation based on commonly accepted opinions and presumptions that should represent a standard of rational …Read more
-
11Explanation-Aware Computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI Workshop, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Technical Report WS-07-06, Menlo Park California, AAAI Press, 2007, 1-9.
-
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
-
11How can logic best be applied to arguments?Logic Journal of the IGPL 5 (4): 603-614. 1997.This talk surveys a number of methods currently being developed that assist in applying logic to the evaluation of arguments used in particular cases. A case is seen as specified by a given text and context of discourse. The methods used are pragmatic, and are based on the Gricean Cooperative Principle , as implemented in several types of goal-directed conversational exchanges
-
10Argument Evaluation and EvidenceImprint: Springer. 2016.This monograph poses a series of key problems of evidential reasoning and argumentation. It then offers solutions achieved by applying recently developed computational models of argumentation made available in artificial intelligence. Each problem is posed in such a way that the solution is easily understood. The book progresses from confronting these problems and offering solutions to them, building a useful general method for evaluating arguments along the way. It provides a hands-on survey ex…Read more
-
10Analogical ArgumentsIn Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Blackwell. 2013.
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 |