•  2
    Editor's introduction
    Argumentation 8 (3): 215-216. 1994.
  •  19
    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
  •  7
    Peter Ramus
    Argumentation 13 (4): 391-392. 1999.
  •  253
    The aim of the paper is to present a typology of argument schemes. In first place, we found it helpful to define what an argument scheme is. Since many argument schemes found in contemporary theories stem from the ancient tradition, we took in consideration classical and medieval dialectical studies and their relation with argumentation theory. This overview on the main works on topics and schemes provides a summary of the main principles of classification. In the second section, Walton’s theory…Read more
  •  68
    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
  •  11
    Explanation-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.
  •  98
    Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations (review)
    with Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, and Chris Reed
    Artificial 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.
  •  23
    On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion
    Argument and Computation 5 (2-3): 139-159. 2014.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclu…Read more
  •  13
    International Commentary on Evidence, 2006 Vol. 4, Issue 2, 1-47 . [link to online version posted].
  •  14
    The Basic Slippery Slope Argument
    Informal Logic 35 (3): 273-311. 2015.
    Although studies have yielded a detailed taxonomy of types of slippery slope arguments, they have failed to identify a basic argumentation scheme that applies to all. Therefore, there is no way of telling whether a given argument is a slippery slope argument or not. This paper solves the problem by providing a basic argumentation scheme. The scheme is shown to fit a clear and easily comprehensible example of a slippery slope argument that strongly appears to be reasonable, something that has als…Read more
  •  91
    Jumping to a Conclusion: Fallacies and Standards of Proof
    with Thomas F. Gordon
    Informal Logic 29 (2): 215-243. 2009.
    Five errors that fit under the category of jumping to a conclusion are identified: (1) arguing from premises that are insufficient as evidence to prove a conclusion (2) fallacious argument from ignorance, (3) arguing to a wrong conclusion, (4) using defeasible reasoning without being open to exceptions, and (5) overlooking/suppressing evidence. It is shown that jumping to a conclusion is best seen not as a fallacy itself, but as a more general category of faulty argumentation pattern underlying …Read more
  •  9
    A Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy
    Informal Logic 34 (3): 276-310. 2014.
    This paper applies dialectical argumentation structures to the problem of analyzing the ad baculum fallacy. It is shown how it is necessary in order to evaluate a suspected instance of the this fallacy to proceed through three levels of analysis: an inferential level, represented by an argument diagram, a speech act level, where conditions for specific types of speech acts are defined and applied, and a dialectical level where the first two levels are linked together and fitted into formal dialo…Read more
  •  50
    Begging the question in arguments based on testimony
    Argumentation 19 (1): 85-113. 2005.
    This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic …Read more
  •  22
    Is there a burden of questioning?
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1): 1-43. 2003.
    In some recent cases in Anglo-American law juries ruled contrary to an expert's testimony even though that testimony was never challenged, contradicted or questioned in the trial. These cases are shown to raise some theoretical questions about formal dialogue systems in computational dialectical systems for legal argumentation of the kind recently surveyed by Bench-Capon (1997) and Hage (2000) in this journal. In such systems, there is a burden of proof, meaning that if the respondent questions …Read more
  •  1
    Book reviews (review)
    with Brian Vickers, I. Gullvåg, L. Albertazzi, O. N. H. Leman, T. L. S. Sprigge, R. Hülsen, Riccardo Pozzo, M. Scanlan, G. Helman, Kenneth G. Ferguson, Anthony Preus, Javier De Lorenzo, and Ole Immanuel Franksen
    History and Philosophy of Logic 16 (2): 269-293. 1995.
  •  33
    Even though tools for identifying and analyzing arguments are now in wide use in the field of argumentation studies, so far there is a paucity of resources for evaluating real arguments, aside from using deductive logic or Bayesian rules that apply to inductive arguments. In this paper it is shown that recent developments in artificial intelligence in the area of computational systems for modeling defeasible argumentation reveal a different approach that is currently making interesting progress.…Read more
  • Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority
    Philosophy 74 (289): 454-457. 1999.
  •  105
    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
  •  301
    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
  •  33
    Reasoning about knowledge using defeasible logic
    Argument and Computation 2 (2-3). 2011.
    In this paper, the Carneades argumentation system is extended to represent a procedural view of inquiry in which evidence is marshalled to support or defeat claims to knowledge. The model is a sequence of moves in a collaborative group inquiry in which parties take turns making assertions about what is known or not known, putting forward evidence to support them, and subjecting these moves to criticisms. It is shown how this model of evaluating evidence in an inquiry is based on a defeasible log…Read more
  •  59
    The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans
    Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6): 1507-1528. 2017.
    This article applies tools from argumentation theory to slippery slope arguments used in current ethical debates on genetic engineering. Among the tools used are argumentation schemes, value-based argumentation, critical questions, and burden of proof. It is argued that so-called drivers such as social acceptance and rapid technological development are also important factors that need to be taken into account alongside the argumentation scheme. It is shown that the slippery slope argument is bas…Read more
  •  509
    Epistemic and Dialectical Models of Begging the Question
    Synthese 152 (2): 237-284. 2006.
    This paper addresses the problem posed by the current split between the two opposed hypotheses in the growing literature on the fallacy of begging the question the epistemic hypothesis, based on knowledge and belief, and the dialectical one, based on formal dialogue systems. In the first section, the nature of split is explained, and it is shown how each hypothesis has developed. To get the beginning reader up to speed in the literature, a number of key problematic examples are analyzed illustra…Read more
  •  14
    Circular demonstration and von Wright-Geach entailment
    with John Woods
    Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20 (4): 768-772. 1979.
  •  72
    Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance
    Argumentation 13 (1): 53-71. 1999.
    This investigation uses the technique of the profile of dialogue as a tool for the evaluation of arguments from ignorance (also called lack-of-evidence arguments, negative evidence, ad ignorantiam arguments and ex silentio arguments). Such arguments have traditionally been classified as fallacies by the logic textbooks, but recent research has shown that in many cases they can be used reasonably. A profile of dialogue is a connected sequence of moves and countermoves in a conversational exchange…Read more
  •  10
    A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy
    University Alabama Press. 2003.
    Although fallacies have been common since Aristotle, until recently little attention has been devoted to identifying and defining them. Furthermore, the concept of fallacy itself has lacked a sufficiently clear meaning to make it a useful tool for evaluating arguments. Douglas Walton takes a new analytical look at the concept of fallacy and presents an up-to-date analysis of its usefulness for argumentation studies. Walton uses case studies illustrating familiar arguments and tricky deceptions i…Read more
  •  26
    The traditional fallacy of many questions, also known as the fallacy of complex question, illustrated by the question, "Have you stopped sexually harassing your students?", has been known since ancient times, but is still alive and well. What is of practical importance about this fallacy is that it represents a tactic of entrapment that is very common in everyday argumentation, as well as in special kinds of argumentation like that in a legal trial or a parliamentary debate. The tactic combines …Read more
  • M. Vorobej, A Theory of Argument
    Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13 (2): 245. 2007.