Learn More
This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes-a notion borrowed from the field of argumentation theory-are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes(More)
Assumptions are often not considered to be definitely true, but only as prima facie justified. When an assumption is prima facie justified, there can for instance be a reason against it, by which the assumption is not actually justified. The assumption is then said to be defeated. This requires a revision of the standard conception of logical interpretation(More)
Currently there is a revival of the study of dialectical argumentation in the artificial intelligence community. There are good reasons why: First, the notions of argument and counterargument shed new light on nonmonotonic reasoning. Second, the process character of dialectical argumentation inspires new computational techniques. In a recent important(More)
In the literature on reasoning on the basis of evidence, two traditions exist: one argument-based, and one based on narratives. Recently, we have proposed a hybrid perspective in which argumentation and narratives are combined. This formalized hybrid theory has been tested in a sense-making software prototype for criminal investigators and decision makers.(More)
The course aims to provide an overview of argumentation as it is studied in Artificial Intelligence, led by applications in the field of law. The course goals are:-Acquire knowledge of the study of argumentation in Artificial Intelligence-Acquire knowledge of the applications in the field of law-Develop critical reflection about the subject matter and the(More)
Solving the first of these two drawbacks has led to a new graphical representation of the arguments, in which argument attacks are shown, and to a change in the argumentation theory, viz. the introduction of a novel notion of an argument, viz. that of a <italic>dialectical</italic> argument. Briefly, a dialectical argument is an argument in which attacks(More)
This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one(More)
In the law, it is generally acknowledged that there are intuitive differences between reasoning with rules and reasoning with principles. For instance, a rule seems to lead directly to its conclusion if its condition is satisfied, while a principle seems to lead merely to a reason for its conclusion. However, the implications of these intuitive differences(More)