-
20Analogical 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
-
27Plausible 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
-
160Classification 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.
-
456Practical 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
-
26Arguments 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
-
7Erratum to: Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systemsAI and Society 32 (4): 497-498. 2017.
-
163An 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
-
Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and FallacyPhilosophy and Rhetoric 20 (1): 63-65. 1987.
-
Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of ArgumentationPhilosophy and Rhetoric 28 (2): 171-175. 1995.
-
41Evaluating 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
-
116Fundamentals 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
-
2Informal 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
-
58Methods of ArgumentationCambridge University Press. 2013.Argumentation, which can be abstractly defined as the interaction of different arguments for and against some conclusion, is an important skill to learn for everyday life, law, science, politics and business. The best way to learn it is to try it out on real instances of arguments found in everyday conversational exchanges and legal argumentation. The introductory chapter of this book gives a clear general idea of what the methods of argumentation are and how they work as tools that can be used …Read more
-
26Burden of Proof, Presumption and ArgumentationCambridge University Press. 2014.The notion of burden of proof and its companion notion of presumption are central to argumentation studies. This book argues that we can learn a lot from how the courts have developed procedures over the years for allocating and reasoning with presumptions and burdens of proof, and from how artificial intelligence has built precise formal and computational systems to represent this kind of reasoning. The book provides a model of reasoning with burden of proof and presumption, based on analyses o…Read more
-
68Argumentation SchemesCambridge University Press. 2008.This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outl…Read more
-
9In recent years, the model of shared decision-making has become increasingly promoted as the preferred standard in doctor-patient communication. As the model considers doctor and patient as coe-qual partners that negotiate their preferred treatment options in order to reach a shared decision, shared de-cision-making notably leaves room for the usage of argumentation in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of argumentative conflict in consultation is the discussion that emerges…Read more
-
10Fallacies Arising from AmbiguitySpringer. 1996.We are happy to present to the reader the first book of our Applied Logic Series. Walton's book on the fallacies of ambiguity is firmly at the heart of practical reasoning, an important part of applied logic. There is an increasing interest in artifIcial intelligence, philosophy, psychol ogy, software engineering and linguistics, in the analysis and possible mechanisation of human practical reasoning. Continuing the ancient quest that began with Aristotle, computer scientists, logicians, philoso…Read more
-
8Relevance in ArgumentationRoutledge. 2004.Vol. presents a method for critically evaluating relevance in arguments based on case studies & a new relevance theory incorporating techniques of argumentation theory, logic & artificiaI intelligence. For scholars/students in argumentation & rhetoric.
-
6Argument Structure: A Pragmatic TheoryUniversity of Toronto Press. 1996.William Baird collection in Social Sciences is the gift of the Estate of William Cameron Baird.
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 |