Abstract

The aim of this paper is to propose foundations for a formal model of representation and numerical evaluation of a possibly broad class of arguments, including those that occur in natural discourse. Since one of the most characteristic features of everyday argumentation is the occurrence of convergent reasoning, special attention should be paid to the operation ⊕, which allows us to calculate the logical force of convergent arguments with an accuracy not offered by other approaches.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2014-08-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-014-9325-3
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
Also cites 16 works outside this index ↓
  1. Budzynska, K. 2011. Araucaria-PL: Software for teaching argumentation theory. In P. Blackbourn, H. van Ditmar…
  2. Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic …
    Artificial Intelligence  
  3. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments
  4. Gabbay, D.M. 2012. Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument and Computation 3(2–3): 87–142.
    Argument and Computation  
  5. Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In I. Rahwan, and G. Simari (eds.), Argumenta…
  6. Kaplan, M. 1981. Rational acceptance. Philosophical Studies 40: 129–145.
    Philosophical Studies  
  7. Pollock, J. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive Science  
  8. Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation…
    Argument and Computation  
  9. Rowe, G., F. Macagno, C. Reed, and D. Walton. 2006. Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching…
    Teaching Philosophy  
  10. Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Th…
    The Knowledge Engineering Review  
  11. van Gelder, T. 2007. The rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk 6(1–4): 23–42.
    Law, Probability and Risk  
  12. van Gijzel, B., and H. Prakken. 2012. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework…
    Argument and Computation  
  13. Vreeswijk, G. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90: 225–279.
    Artificial Intelligence  
  14. Verheij, B. 2003. DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logi…
    Journal of Logic and Computation  
  15. Vorobej, M. 1995. Hybrid arguments. Informal logic 17: 289–296.
    Informal logic  
  16. Yanal, R.J. 1991. Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic 13: 137–144.
    Informal Logic