Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning About EvidenceProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Document TypeConference Proceeding
AbstractThis paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, it is studied how Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars can be exploited by modern visualisation software for argumentation, and how a formal account of the method can be given in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
Citation InformationHenry Prakken, Chris Reed and Douglas Walton. "Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning About Evidence" Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (2003) p. 32 - 41
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/douglas-walton/66/