References

Achinstein Peter (1983) The Nature of Explanation, New York, Oxford University PressAlberts Laurie (2001)‘Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation’, Villanova Environmental Law

Journal, 12: 33-63Anderson Barrie, Anderson Dawn (1998) Manufacturing Guilt: Wrongful Convictions in

Canada, Halifax, Fernwood PublishingAnderson Terence J (1999)‘On Generalizations I: A Preliminary Exploration’, South Texas

Law Review, 40: 455-481Anderson Terence, Twining William (1991) Analysis of Evidence: How to do Things with

Facts Based on Wigmore’s Science of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little Brown & CoAristotle (1928) On Sophistical Refutations, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass ,

Harvard University PressAristotle (1937) Rhetoric, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University

PressAristotle (1938) Prior Analytics, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard Uni-

versity PressAristotle (1939) Topics, trans Forster ES, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass , Har-

vard University PressAshley Kevin D, Rissland Edwina L (2003) ‘Law, Learning and Representation’, Artificial

Intelligence, 150: 17-58Ball Vaughn C (1980) ‘The Myth of Conditional Relevancy’, Georgia Law Review, 14,

435-469Bench-Capon Trevor (1997) ‘Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law’, Artificial Intel-

ligence and Law, 5, 249-261Bench-Capon Trevor (1998) ‘Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue

Game’, Jurix 1998: The Eleventh Conference, ed Jaap Hage et al , Nijmegen, GerardNoodt Instituut, 5-20

Bench-Capon Trevor (2002) ‘Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue betweenParties with Different Values’, Informal Logic, 22: 231-245 Version available (2003)on the web page of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Liver-pool: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~tbc/projects/ifl.pdf

Bench-Capon Trevor, Sartor Giovanni (2003) ‘A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases In-corporating Theories and Values’, Artificial Intelligence, 150, 97-143

Bex Floris, Prakken Henry (2004) ‘Reinterpreting Arguments in Dialogue: An Applicationto Evidential Reasoning’, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed Thomas FGordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 119-130

Bex Floris, Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2003) ‘Towards a Formal Ac-count of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations’,Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12, 125-165

Bibel Wolfgang (2004) ‘AI and the Conquest of Complexity in Law’, Invited Lecture, Sev-enteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, availableon the web site of the JURIX 2004 Conference: http://gi-fg612.fokus.fhg.de/Jurix2004/

Boutlier C, Becher V (1995) ‘Abduction as Belief Revision’, Artificial Intelligence, 77, 43-94

Branting L Carl (2000) Reasoning with Rules and Precedents: A Computational Model ofLegal Analysis, Dordrecht, Kluwer

250 References

Bromberger Sylvain (1966) ‘Why-Questions’, Mind and Cosmos, ed Robert G Colodny,Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 86-111

Burke Michael (1985) ‘Unstated Premises’, Informal Logic, 7, 107-118Burnyeat Myles F (1994) ‘Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion’, Aristotle’s

Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, ed David J Furley and Alexander Nehemas, Princeton,N J , Princeton University Press, 3-55

Callen Craig R (2003) ‘Rationality and Relevancy: Conditional Relevancy and ConstrainedResources’, Michigan State University Law Review, 4, 1243-1303

Campbell Stephen K (1974) Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking, Englewood Cliffs,Prentice-Hall

Carberry Sandra (1990) Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue, Cambridge,Mass , MIT Press

Cawsey Alison (1992) Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explana-tory Dialogue, Cambridge, Mass , The MIT Press

Chakrabarti Kisor Kumar (1995) Definition and Induction: A Historical and ComparativeStudy, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press

Chandrasekaran B (1986) ‘Generic Tasks in Knowledge Based Reasoning’, IEEE Expert, 1,23-30

Chorley Alison, Bench-Capon Trevor (2004) ‘AGATHA: Automation of the Constructionof Theories in Case Law Domains, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, edThomas F Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 89-98

Coffa J Alberto (1974) “Hempel’s Ambiguity”, Synthese, 28, pp 141 - 163Collingwood Robin G (1946) The Idea of History, Oxford, Clarendon PressCollingwood Robin G (1939) An Autobiography, Oxford, Oxford University PressCollins Allan, Warnock Eleanor H, Aiello Nelleke, Miller Mark L (1975)‘Reasoning from

Incomplete Knowledge’, Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Sci-ence, ed Daniel G Bobrow and Allan Collins, New York, Academic Press, 383-415

Copi Irving M (1982) Introduction to Logic, 6th ed , New York, MacmillanCopi Irving M, Cohen Carl (1994) Introduction to Logic, 9th ed , New York, MacmillanDieks Dennis, de Regt Henk W(1998) ‘Reduction and Understanding’, Foundations of Sci-

ence, 1, 45-59Doyle J (1979) ‘A Truth Maintenance System’, Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231-272Doyle J (1992) ‘Reason Maintenance and Belief Revision’, Belief Revision, ed Peter Gar-

denfors, Cambridge, Mass , MIT Press, 29-51Dray William (1964) Philosophy of History, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-HallDray William (1995) History as Re-enactment: R G Collingwood’s Idea of History, Oxford,

Oxford University PressDung P (1995) ‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Non-

monotonic Reasoning, Logic Progamming and n-person Games’, Artificial Intelli-gence, 77, 321-357

Ennis Robert H (1982), ‘Identifying Implicit Assumptions’, Synthese, 51, 61-86Farley Arthur M, Freeman Kathleen (1995) ‘Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation’,

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law,New York, ACM Press

Faye Jan (1999) ‘Explanation Explained’, Synthese, 120, 61-75Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rulemaking – Rules in Effect (2002) The latest ver-

sions of the federal rules of evidence as well as other rules can be found on the follow-ing web page: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules4.html

Feteris Eveline T (1999) Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories ofthe Justification of Legal Decisions, Dordrecht, Kluwer

References 251

Finocchiaro Maurice (1980) ‘Scientific Discoveries as Growth of Understanding: The Caseof Newton’s Gravitation’, Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, ed ThomasNickles, Dordrecht, Reidel, 235-255

Finocchiaro Maurice (1980a) Galileo and the Art of Reasoning, Dordrecht, ReidelFrank Jerome (1963) Courts on Trial, New York, AtheneumFreeman James B (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Berlin, ForisFreeman James B (1995) ‘The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowl-

edge’, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed Hans V Hansen andRobert C Pinto, University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 265-273

Friedman Michael (1974) ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, The Journal of Phi-losophy, 71, 5-19

Friedman Michael (1988) ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, Theories of Expla-nation, ed J C Pitt, New York, Oxford University Press, 188-198

Friedman Richard D (1986) ‘A Diagrammatic Approach to Evidence’, Boston UniversityLaw Review, 66, 571-622

Friedman Richard D (1994) ‘Conditional Probative Value: Neoclassicism Without Myth’,Michigan Law Review, 93, 439-460

Gardenfors Peter (1988) Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge, Mass , MIT PressGelfond Michael, Przymusinska Halina (1990) ‘Formalization of Inheritance Reasoning in

Autoepistemic Logic’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 13, 403-443Gilbert Geoffrey (1788) The Law of Evidence, 5th ed , Philadelphia, John CruikshankGoldman Alvin I (1970) A Theory of Human Action, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-HallGoodwin Jean (2000) ‘Wigmore’s Chart Method’, Informal Logic, 20, 2000, 223-243Gordon Robert M (1986) ‘Folk Psychology as Simulation’, Mind and Language, 1, 158-

171Gordon Thomas F (1996) ‘Computational Dialectics’, available at the web page:

http://www.tfgordon.de/publications/Gordon1996a.pdfGordon Thomas F (1995) The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Proce-

dural Justice, Dordrecht, KluwerGordon Thomas F (1996) ‘Computational Dialectics’, Computers as Assistants – A New

Generation of Support Systems, ed P Hoschka, Mahwah, New Jersey, Erlbaum, 108-123

Gordon Thomas F, Karacapilidis Nikos (1997) ‘The Zeno Argumentation Framework’,Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law,Melbourne, Australia, 10-18

Gough James, Tindale Christopher (1985) ‘Hidden or Missing Premises’, Informal Logic,7, 99-106

Grasso Floriana (2002) ‘Towards Computational Rhetoric’, Informal Logic, 22, 195-230Grennan Wayne (1997) Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s

University PressGrice H Paul (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, The Logic of Grammar, ed Donald

Davidson and Gilbert Harman, Encino, California, Dickenson, 64-75Guthrie WKC (1981) A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University

PressHage Jaap (2000) ‘Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law’, Artificial Intelli-

gence and Law, 8, 137-172Hage Jaap (1997) Reasoning With Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying

Logic, Dordrecht, KluwerHalonen Ilpo, Hintikka Jaakko (1997) ‘Unification – It’s Magnificent But Is It Explana-

tion?’, Synthese, 120, 27-47Hamblin Charles L (1970) Fallacies, London, Methuen

252 References

Hamblin, Charles L (1971) ‘Mathematical Models of Dialogue’, Theoria, 37, 130-155Hansen Hans V, Pinto Robert C (1995) Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings,

University Park, The Pennsylvania State University PressHart HLA, Honore AM (1962) Causation in the Law, Oxford, Oxford University PressHastings Arthur C (1963) A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation,

Evanston, Illinois, Ph D DissertationHempel Carl G (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York, The Free PressHintikka Jaakko (1995) ‘The Games of Logic and the Games of Inquiry’, Dialectica, 49,

229-249Hitchcock David (1985) ‘Enthymematic Arguments’, Informal Logic, 7, 83-97Hitchcock David (2004) ‘Toulmin’s Warrants’,: available on David Hitchcock’s personal

web page: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/Toulminswarrants.pdfHitchcock David, McBurney Peter, Parsons Simon (2001) ‘A Framework for Deliberation

Dialogues’, Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Con-ference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), eds H V Han-sen, CW Tindale, JA Blair and RH Johnson, compact disk. Also available on PeterMcBurney’s web page at the University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Sci-ence: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/

Hohmann Hanns (1989) ‘The Dynamics of Stasis: Classical Rhetorical Theory and ModernLegal Argumentation’, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 34, 171-197

Hohmann Hanns (1990) ‘The Nature of the Common Law and the Comparative Study ofLegal Reasoning’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 38, 143-170

Hohmann Hanns (2001) ‘Stasis’, Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, ed Thomas O Sloane, NewYork, Oxford University Press, 741-745

Horacek Helmut (1997)‘A Model for Adapting Explanations to the User’s Likely Infer-ences’, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 7, 1-55

Huber Peter W (1991) Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York, Ba-sic Books

Hurley Patrick (1991) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed , Belmont, California, Wad-sworth

Hurley Patrick (2000) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 7th ed , Belmont, California, Wad-sworth

Hurley Patrick (2003) A Concise Introduction to Logic, 8th ed , Belmont, California, Wad-sworth

Jacobs Scott (1989) ‘Speech Acts and Arguments’, Argumentation, 3, 345-365Johnson Ralph H (2002) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Mahwah,

New Jersey, ErlbaumJosephson John R, Josephson Susan G (1994) Abductive Inference: Computation, Philoso-

phy, Technology, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressKeppens Jeroen, Zeleznikow John (2002) ‘On the Role of Model-based Reasoning in Deci-

sion Support in Crime Investigation’, Report of the Centre for Forensic Statistics andLegal Reasoning, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh

Kienpointner Manfred (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentations-mustern, Stuttgart, Fromman-Holzboog

Kienpointner Manfred (1997) ‘On the Art of Finding Arguments: What Ancient and Mod-ern Masters of Invention Have to Tell Us About the Ars Inveniendi’, Argumentation11, 225-236

Kienpointner Manfred (2003) ‘Perelman on Causal Arguments: The Argument of Waste’,5th ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the In-ternational Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed Frans H van Eemeren,

References 253

J Anthony Blair, Charles A Willard and Francisca Snoek Henkemans, Amsterdam, SicSat, 611-616

Kitcher Philip (1989) ‘Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World’, Sci-entific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 13, ed PhilipKitcher and Wesley Salmon, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 410-505

Krabbe Erik CW (1995) ‘Appeal to Ignorance’, Fallacies: Classical and ContemporaryReadings, ed Hans V Hansen and Robert C Pinto, University Park, The PennsylvaniaState University Press, 251-264

Krabbe Erick CW (1996) ‘Can We Ever Pin One Down to a Formal Fallacy?’, Logic andArgumentation, ed Johan van Benthem, Frans H van Eemeren and Frank Veltman,Amsterdam, North-Holland, 129-141

Krabbe Erik CW (1999) ‘Profiles of Dialogue’, JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Ben-them on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, ed Jelle Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maartende Rijke and Yde Venema, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 25-36

Krabbe Erik CW (2001) ‘The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion’, Synthese, 127,141-159

Leenes Ronald E (2001) ‘Burden of Proof in Dialogue Games and Dutch Civil Procedure’,Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, StLouis, Missouri, ACM Press, 109-118

Lester J, Porter B (1997) ‘Developing and Empirically Evaluating Robust ExplanationGenerators: The KNIGHT Experiments’, Computational Linguistics, 2, 65-101

Lodder Arno R (1999) Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumen-tation, Dordrecht, Kluwer

Lodder Arno R (2000) ‘Book Review of Gordon (1995)’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8,255-264

Loftus Elisabeth (1979) Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard UniversityPress

Loui Ronald P (1998) ‘Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reason-ing’, Computational Intelligence, 14, 1-38

Loui Ronald P, GordonThomas F (1994), Call for papers for 1994 AAAI Seattle Workshopon Computational Dialectics http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/comectics.text

Mackenzie Jim (1981) ‘The Dialectics of Logic’, Logique et Analyse, 94, 159-177Mackenzie Jim (1990) ‘Four Dialogue Systems’, Studia Logica, 49, 567-583Mackie John L (1965) ‘Causes and Conditions’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 245-

264Mates Benson (1996) The Skeptic Way: Sextus Empiricus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Ox-

ford, Oxford University PressMayfield James (2000) ‘Evaluating Plan Recognition Systems: Three Properties of a Good

Explanation’, Artificial Intelligence Review, 14, 351-376McBurney Peter, Parsons Simon (2002) ‘Dialogue Games in Multi-Agents Systems’, In-

formal Logic, 22, 257-274Michael Jerome, Adler Mortimer (1934) ‘The Trial of an Issue of Fact: I’, Columbia Law

Review, 34, 1224-1306Michael Jerome, Adler Mortimer (1934), ‘The Trial of an Issue of Fact: II’, Columbia Law

Review, 34, 1462-1493Moore Johanna D (1991) ‘A Reacting Approach to Explanation: Taking the User’s Feed-

back into Account’, Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Com-putational Linguistics, ed CL Paris, WR Swartout and WC Mann, Dordrecht, Kluwer,3-48

Moore Johanna D (1995) Participating in Explanatory Dialogues, Cambridge, Mass , MITPress

254 References

Moore Robert C (1985) ‘Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic’, Artificial In-telligence, 25, 75-94

Morgan Edmund L (1929) ‘Functions of Judge and Jury in the Determination of Prelimi-nary Questions of Fact’, Harvard Law Review, 43, 1929, 165-191

Moulin B, Irandoust H, Belanger M, Desbordes G (2002) ‘Explanation and ArgumentationCapabilities’, Artificial Intelligence Review, 17, 169-222

Nance Dale A (1995) ‘Conditional Probative Value and the Reconstruction of the FederalRules of Evidence’, Michigan Law Review, 94, 419-456

Nissan Ephraim (2001) ‘The Bayesianism Debate in Legal Scholarship’, Artificial Intelli-gence and Law, 9, 199-214

Nuchelmans Gabriel (1993) ‘On the Fourfold Root of the Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Em-pirical Logic and Public Debate, ed Erik CW Krabbe, Renee Jose Dalitz and Pier ASmit, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 37-47

Palmer Andrew (2003) Proof and the Preparation of Trials, Sydney, Australia, LawbookCo

Park Roger C (1998) ‘Character at the Crossroads’, Hastings Law Journal, 49, 749-754Park Roger C, Leonard David P, Goldberg Steven H (1998) Evidence Law, St Paul, Minne-

sota West Group,Pearl Judea (1991) ‘Probabilistic Semantics for Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Philosophy and

AI: Essays on the Interface, ed Robert Cummins and John Pollock, Cambridge, Mass ,The MIT Press, 157-187

Pearl Judea (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press

Peirce Charles S (1965) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol V, ‘Pragmatismand Pragmaticism’, ed Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, Cambridge, Mass , HarvardUniversity Press

Peirce Charles S (1965II) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol II, ‘Elements ofLogic’, ed Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard UniversityPress

Peirce Charles S (1992) Reasoning and the Logic of Things, ed Kenneth Laine Kettner,Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University Press

Peng Yun, Reggia James A (1990) Abductive Inference Models for Diagnostic Problem-Solving, New York, Springer-Verlag

Perelman Chaim, Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie (1971) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argu-mentation, trans J Wilkinson and P Weaver, 2nd ed , Notre Dame, University of NotreDame Press, (First published, as La Nouvelle Rhetorique, in 1958)

Pollock John L (1987) ‘Defeasible Reasoning’, Cognitive Science, 11, 481-518Pollock John L (1995) Cognitive Carpentry, Cambridge, Mass , The MIT PressPrakken Henry (1991) ‘On Formalizing Burden of Proof in Legal Argument’, Legal

Knowledge-Based Systems: JURIX 99, the Twelfth Conference, Nijmegen, GerardNoodt Instituut, 85-97

Prakken Henry (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Dordrecht, KluwerPrakken Henry ‘Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argu-

mentation’, Synthese, 127, 187-219Prakken Henry (2001) ‘Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?’, Fundamenta

Informaticae, 20, 1-20Prakken Henry (2002) ‘Incomplete Arguments in Legal Discourse: a Case Study’, Legal

Knowledge and Information Systems ed TJM Bench-Capon, A Daskalopulu andR Winkels JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 93-102

References 255

Prakken Henry (2003) ‘Perelman Formalized? On Reconciling the Ideals of Logical Valid-ity and Persuasiveness’, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Soci-ety for the Study of Argumentation, ed Frans H van Eemeren, J Anthony Blair, CharlesA Willard and Francisca Snoek Henkemans, Amsterdam, Sic Sat, 857-860

Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2003) ‘Argumentation Schemes and Gener-alisations in Reasoning about Evidence’, Proceedings of the Conference: The 9th Inter-national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, University of Edinburgh, NewYork, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 32-41

Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2005) ‘Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’,unpublished paper

Prakken Henry, Renooij Silja (2001) ‘Reconstructing Causal Reasoning about Evidence: ACase Study’, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed Bart Verheij, Arno RLodder, Ronald P Loui and A Muntjewerjj, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 131-142

Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (1996) ‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Ar-guments in Legal Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 331-368

Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (1997) ‘Argument-based Extended Logic Programmingwith Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7, 25-75

Prakken Henry Sartor Giovanni (2003) ‘The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law’, Ra-tio Juris, 16, 495-516

Preyer Gerhard, Mans Dieter (1999) ‘On Contemporary Developments in the Theory ofArgumentation’, Protosociology, 13, 3-13

Reed Chris (1998) ‘Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication’, Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ed Y Demazeau, IEEE Press, 246-253

Reed Chris, Rowe Glenn (2002) ‘Araucaria Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagram-ming and XML’, Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University ofDundee Available at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/

Reed Chris, Rowe Glenn (2003) Araucaria, Version 2, User Manual, Available athttp://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/

Reed Chris, Norman Timothy J 2003 Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argumentand Computation, Dordrecht, Kluwer

Reed Chris, Walton Doug (2005) ‘Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumen-tation Schemes in Agent Communication’, Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, to appear

Reiter Raymond (1980) ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81-132Reiter Raymond (1987) ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Annual Review of Computer Science,

2, 147-186Renon Luis Vega (1998) ‘Aristotle’s Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation’, Argumenta-

tion, 12, 95-113Rissland Edwina L (1990, 1957-1980) ‘Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to

a Model of Legal Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 99Rissland Edwina L, Ashley Kevin D, Loui RP (2003) ‘AI and Law: A Fruitful Synergy’,

Artficial Intelligence, 150, 1-15Rescher Nicholas (1976) Plausible Reasoning, Assen, Van GorcumRobinson Richard (1953) Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed, Oxford, Clarendon PressRoth Bram, Verheij Bart (2004) ‘Dialectical Arguments and Case Comparison’, Legal

Knowledge and Information Systems, ed Thomas F Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press,99-108

Roth Bram, Verheij Bart (1995) ‘Cases and Dialectical Arguments: An Approach to Case-Based Reasoning’, WORM’04: The Second International Workshop on Regulatory On-

256 References

tologies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3292, ed R Meersman, Z Tari and ACorsaro, Heidelberg, Springer, 634-651

Russell Stuart J, Norvig Peter (2004) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, UpperSaddle River, Prentice Hall

Salmon Wesley C (1970) ‘Statistical Explanation’, The Nature and Function of ScientificTheories, ed Robert G Colodny, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 173-231

Salmon Wesley C (1989) ‘Four Decades of Scientific Explanation’, Scientific Explanation,Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 13, Minneapolis, University ofMinnesota Press, 3-219

Salmon Wesley C (1992) ‘Scientific Explanation’, Introduction to the Philosophy of Sci-ence, ed Merrilee H Salmon et al, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 7-41

Salmon Wesley C (1998) ‘The Importance of Scientific Understanding’, Causality and Ex-planation, ed Wesley Salmon, New York, Oxford University Press ,79-91

Saunders Kevin W (1993) ‘Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation’, South CarolinaLaw Review, 44, 343-382

Schank Roger C (1986) Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Crea-tively, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Erlbaum

Schank Roger C, Abelson Robert P (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Hills-dale, N J Erlbaum

Schum David A (1994) Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, New York,John Wiley and Sons

Schurz Gerhard (1999) ‘Explanation as Unification’, Synthese, 95-114Scott AC, Clancey WJ, Davis R, Shortliffe EH (1977) ‘Explanation Capabilities of Knowl-

edge-Based Production Systems’, Rule-Based Expert Systems, ed BG Buchanan andEH Shortliffe, Addison Wesley, 338-362

Scriven Michael (1962) ‘Explanations, Predictions and Laws’, Minnesota Studies in thePhilosophy of Science, vol 3, ed H Feigl and G Maxwell, Minneapolis, University ofMinnesota Press, 171-174

Scriven Michael (1964) ‘Critical Study of The Structure of Science’, Review of Metaphys-ics, 17, 403-424

Scriven Michael (1976) Reasoning, New York, McGraw-HillSegal Martin E (2004) ‘In Inheritance Case, Try Shifting Burden of Proof’, Ask Doctor

Law, The Miami Herald, December 13, 8Sextus Empiricus (1933) Against the Logicians (AL), trans RG Bury, Loeb Classical Li-

brary, Cambridge, Mass , Harvard University PressSidgwick Alfred (1883) Fallacies: A View of Logic from the Practical Side, London, Kegan

Paul, Trench and CompanySidgwick Alfred (1893) The Process of Argument, London, Adam and Charles BlackSingh Munindar P (2000) ‘A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages’, Is-

sues in Agent Communication, ed Frank Dignum and Mark Greaves, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 31-45

Singh Munidar P (1998) ‘Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles’,Computer, 31, 425-445

Snoeck Henkemans A F (1992) Analyzing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction ofMultiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion, Am-sterdam, SICSAT

Snoeck Henkemans A Francisca (2001) ‘Argumentation Structures’, Crucial Concepts inArgumentation Theory, ed Frans H van Eemeren, Amsterdam, Amsterdam UniversityPress ,101-134

References 257

Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ (1995) ‘Publication Decisions Revisited: TheEffect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa’,The American Statistician, 49, 108-112

Stevenson Charles L (1944) Ethics and Language, New Haven, Yale University PressStrong John W (ed) (1992) McCormick on Evidence, 4th ed, St Paul, Minn , West Publish-

ing CoThayer James Bradley (1889)A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law,

New York, Little Brown & CoThayer James Bradley (1989) ‘Presumptions and the Law of Evidence’, Harvard Law Re-

view, 3, 141-166Thomas Stephen N (1981) Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 2nd ed , Englewood

Cliffs Prentice-HallTillers Peter (1994) ‘Exaggerated and Misleading Reports of the Death of Conditional

Relevance’, Michigan Law Review, 93, 478-484Toulmin Stephen (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressTrout JD (2002) ‘Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding’, Philosophy of

Science, 69, 212-233Twining William (1985) Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore, London, Wei-

denfeld and NicolsonTwining William (1999) ‘Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation About Questions

of Fact’, South Texas Law Review, 40, 351-365Twining William, Miers David (1976) How To Do Things With Rules, London, Weidenfeld

and Nicolsonvan Eemeren Frans H, Grootendorst Rob (1984) Speech Acts in Communicative Discus-

sions, Dordrecht, Forisvan Eemeren Frans H, Grootendorst Rob (1987) 'Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspec-

tive’, Argumentation, 1, 283-301van Eemeren Frans H, Grootendorst Rob (1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fal-

lacies, Hillsdale, N J , Erlbaumvan Eemeren Frans H, Kruiger Tjark (1987) ‘Identifying Argumentation Schemes’, Argu-

mentation: Perspectives and Approaches, ed Frans H van Eemeren et al , Dordrecht,Foris, 70- 81

van Fraassen Bas C (1980) The Scientific Image, Oxford, Clarendon Pressvan Fraassen Bas C (1993) ‘The Pragmatics of Explanation’, Explanation, ed David-Hillel

Ruben, Oxford, Oxford University press, 275-309Verheij Bart (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and De-

feat, Doctoral Dissertation, University of MaastrichtVerheij Bart (2000)‘Dialectical Argumentation as a Heuristic for Courtroom Decision Mak-

ing’, web page of Bart Verheij, Department of Metajuridica, Universiteit MaastrichtVerheij Bart (2000) ‘Logic, Context and Valid Inference Or: Can There be a Logic of Law’,

available on the following web page:www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/Verheij Bart (2003) Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach

to Legal Logic’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195Verheij Bart (2005) Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers

and Other Arguers, The Hague, TMC Asser Pressvon Wright Georg Henrik (1971) Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca, New York, Cor-

nell University PressWagenaar, Willem A, van Koppen Peter J, Crombag Hans FM (1993) Anchored Narra-

tives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, Hertfordshire, Harvester WheatsheafWalton Douglas N (1984) Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies, Lanham, Maryland,

University Press of America

258 References

Walton Douglas (1989) Informal Logic, New York, Cambridge University PressWalton Douglas (1990) ‘Ignoring Qualifications (Secundum Quid) as a Subfallacy of Hasty

Generalization’, Logique et Analyse, 129-130, 113-154Walton Douglas (1992) ‘Nonfallacious Arguments from Ignorance’, American Philosophi-

cal Quarterly, Vol 29, 381-387Walton Douglas (1995) A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, The University of Alabama Press,

Tuscaloosa and LondonWalton Douglas (1996) Arguments from Ignorance, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn

Sate PressWalton Douglas (1996)Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Mahwah, New

Jersey, ErlbaumWalton Douglas (1997) Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn

State PressWalton Douglas (1998) The New Dialectic, Toronto, University of Toronto PressWalton Douglas (1998a) Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama

PressWalton Douglas (1999) ‘Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization’, Argumentation,

13, 161-182Walton Douglas (1999) ‘Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue’, Informal Logic,

19: 119-143 Available at www.uwinnipeg.ca/~waltonWalton Douglas (1999) One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias, Albany,

State University of New York PressWalton Douglas (2001) ‘Abductive, Presumptive and Plausible Arguments’, Informal

Logic, 21, 141-169Walton Douglas (2002) Legal Argumentation and Evidence, University Park, Pennsylvania,

The Pennsylvania State University PressWalton Douglas (2003) ‘Argumentation Schemes: The Basis of Conditional Relevance’,

Michigan State University Law Review, 4, 1205-1242Walton Douglas (2004) ‘A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation’, Philosophical Explo-

rations, 7, 71-89Walton Douglas (2004a) Abductive Reasoning, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama PressWalton Douglas (2004) Relevance in Argumentation, Mahwah, New Jersey, ErlbaumWalton Douglas, Krabbe Erik CW (1995)Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of In-

terpersonal Reasoning, Albany, State University of New York PressWalton Douglas, Reed Chris (2003) ‘Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical

Questions’, Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argu-mentation, ed Frans H van Eemeren, J Anthony Blair, Charles A Willard, and A Fran-cisca Snoek Henkemans, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp 195-211

Walton Douglas, Reed Chris (2004) ‘Enthymemes and Argumentation Schemes’, Synthese,to appear

Weber Erik, van Dyck Maarten (2002) ‘Unification and Explanation’, Synthese, 131, 145-154

Whatley Richard (1836) Elements of Logic, 6th ed, London, B FellowesWick MR, Thompson WB (1992) ‘Reconstructive Expert System Explanation’, Artificial

Intelligence, 54, 33-70Wigmore John H (1913) The Principles of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little, Brown and Com-

pany (second edition, 1931)Wigmore John H (1935) A Student’s Textbook of the Law of Evidence, Chicago, The Foun-

dation PressWigmore John H (1940) A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at

Common Law, 3rd ed, vol 1, Boston, Little, Brown and Company

References 259

Wigmore John H (1983) Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol 1a, ed Peter Tillers, Bos-ton, Little, Brown and Company

Woods John (1999) ‘Peirce’s Abductive Enthusiasms’, Protosociology, 13: 117-125Wooldridge Michael (2002) Reasoning About Rational Agents, Cambridge Mass , The MIT

PressWright Richard W (1985) ‘Causation in Tort Law’, California Law Review, 73, 1735-1828

Index

abduction 103-105 160-61 176consistency-based 165machines 200

abductive argument 9 10 58 104 163 169234critical questions 106scheme 105 237

abstraction 38 42 68ladder of 68 70tree of 6816

ad baculum fallacy 126Achinstein Peter 204ad hominem argument 27 117 139 167

234circumstantial 155ethotic 11

Adler Mortimer 119advocacy 93 150 151affidavit argument 90 91affirming the consequent 238AGATHA system 145agent 12 26

characteristics of 167 169 174commitments 29 138 195defined 173 174goals of 175 178 181 195knowledge 202-203multi-agent 93 164 173 174 195 203purpose 204qualifications of 202-203rational 56 195self-defence 147

airline flight schedule example 97airport example 102anchored narrative 157 209 212Anderson Terrence J 9 36 37 42-44 48

150 230 231 233appeal to expert opinion 12 29 43-46 66

78critical questions for 12fallibility 113

scheme for 12 45appeal to witness testimony 8 43 45-46

53 57 74 228-229critical questions for 13 45-46importance in law 75modus ponens 47scheme for 13 150warrant for 47

Araucaria 51-53 71 227 229chain of reasoning represented 187diagram 122 134 190-91 219 224dialectical 196explanation analysis 192how to use 5-7 235language of 233letter example 134 135 136probability values 130-31problematic 242

ArguMed 82argument 209

as explanation 194circular 208components of 241 247-248convergent 2 3-4 120 131deductive 74defeasible94

characteristics 109 110defined 7578dialogue sequence 109-10evaluation of 91-92 95 112open-ended 108 109

distinguished 192-93evaluation 245hypothetical 194linked 2-3 4 62-63 70 120 169moves in 92plausible 215priority 88real 245serial 149syllogistic 4

262 Index

weak 61 243argument diagram 147 217 240

components 2 217-218problems with 231usefulness of 230

argument extrapolation 115 125 127128138 140 141 225

argument from appearance 104argumentation scheme 90critical questions for 90-91defeasible 104

argument from an established rule 11235

argument from analogy 11 84-86 144-47215 235critical questions for 85

argument from bias 11argument from cause to effect 11 234

236critical questions for 236described 236

argument from commitment 11 46 138argument from correlation to cause 11

234argument from effect to cause

scheme for 237-238argument from evidence to a hypothesis

11 234argument from example 10 46 235argument from exception to a rule 11argument for an exceptional case 85-86

critical questions for 86argument from expert opinion 15 18 46

75 163 215 234 239 246critical question for 12 29defeasibility of 77-78example of 78scheme for 12 45 91

argument from fear appeal 11argument from gradualism 11 46 235argument from ignorance 10 60 63-65

87 96 97 101 161critical questions for 18-19 98-99dependence of 67epistemic version 99fallacious 100in law 65logical forms 100scheme 66 98 103search process in 217shifting 103

argument from inconsistent commitment11 234

argument from popular opinion 10 38235

argument from positive or negative con-sequences 10

argument from precedent 11 46 84 144235 247critical questions for 84

argument from sign 10 46 57 234argument from sunk costs 10 234argument from threat 11 234argument from verbal classification 10

235argument from witness testimony 18 53

75 119 150 234critical questions for 13scheme for 13

argument invention 34 214 215 221 232characteristics 215components 215-216search process 216

bidirectional 226recursive 217

argumentationchain of 2 126 128 216 226 230misdirected 140relevance in 115schemes 44 230 234-235

elements of 233defeasible 10research on 233

argumentum ad baculum 116 117argumentum ad ignorantiam (see argu-

ment from ignorance)argumentum ad populum (see argument

from popular opinion)Aristotle 28n7 41 80 174 197 213

argument invention 214 240dialogue classification 153 156dialogue structure 94enthymeme 81examination dialogue 153 154-56fallacy 117 139practical syllogism 174

artificial intelligence (AI) 56 59 101-102168current methodology 72explanation generation 177 181-82search 214

assumptions 134-35 194 209 247

Index 263

closed world 66 101hidden 152implicit 52 188 190missing 131needed 131procedural 141tentative 106used 131

attack 24 27 71 72 88 139 140 146 148215

Ball Vaughn C 118 132 133basement water example 176-77Bayesian rules 169Belanger M 177178belief 29 36 44 56 63 164 166 195

defined 95belief and knowledge model 88belief-desire-intention (BDI) 28 95 164-

66belief revision theory 95 163 165-66Bench-Capon Trevor 145 146Bex Floris 233bias 46 97 105

indicator 46witness 46 57

bounded rationality 42breach of Contract Case 223-229

defining elements 225key list for 223-224 228

Bromberger Sylvain 196 210burden of disproof 109burden of proof 17 87 99

defined 230-231disputes about 30distribution of 65 102global 17higher 91in law 32levels of 17meaning 99n6problem of 243responsibility of 96reversal of 63 65 67 87 88 103 109-

10 219 222 243shift 19 60 88 100 218-219

illicit 101weight in trial 17-18

Burnyeat Myles F 14n6 80-81

car example 39 73-74 194

Carberry Sandra 28Carneades 170case specific generalizations 37 43-44cases

easy 138 141 218 222 240hard 138 141 222 240 241 244real 25 128 131 138 211 222 223 226

232 237 241 247CATO system 144causation 238-239cause to effect argumentation 236Cawsey Alison 173 176 196 211Chakrabarti Kisor Kumar 41character 153

defined 167Chorley Alison 145-46circumstantial ad hominem 11Coffa J Alberto 182Cohen Carl 39-40 41 82Collingwood Robin G 168 176

theory of reenactment 202 203-204view of explanation 175 196

Collingwood-Dray agent 203commitment 163

defined 95-96openness 164respondent 93retraction 29 109 110 166rules 95 108 164set 95 210store 19-20 29tentative 110understanding 183witness 151

computational dialectics 75 91-92 142156

computer science 20 65 81 97 184conclusion 216

retraction 109ultimate 115 117-18 126 127 36 166

198 216-217 222 225 227conditional 236

defeasible 61 80knowledge-based 87

confidence factors 59 80connective 233consistency 12 58 152

critical questions for 45-46contentious argument 28n7 154contract dispute 18-21contract dispute case 89 91

264 Index

conversation 197defined 196framework 211

Copi Irving M 39-40 41 82covering law model of explanation 177

178 200plausibility of 183unnecessary 181

cranberry cask case 48-53 72key list for 50-51

critical discussion 24-25 28 112 151-53classification 116conflict in 116goal 24retraction in 28stages of 24ten rules for argumentation stage 24-

25Crombag Hans FM 46

Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticalscase 77

De Regt Henk W 204debate

parliamentary 21deductive-nomological (DN) theory 165

178-80resistance to 203restriction of application 181 182

defaults 86rules 86-87

defeasibility 76defeasible generalization fallacy 40defeat 71defeater 88 111 149DEFLOG 247deletion test 120 136deliberation dialogue 26

eight stages of 27goal of 28 112group 26solitary 26

dependency-directed backtrack-ing(DDB) theory 166

Desbordes G 177 178dialectic

defined 197dialectical arguments 154 174

goal of 154dialogue

argumentation 93

basic types 22-23 93 246closing 93confrontation 93defined 21 92embedding 151goals of 92 94mixed 28opening 93stages of 93

didactic argumentdefined 154

Dieks Dennis 204dismissal law case 147 153disorder evocation 199dispute 18

dynamic 113dissent 17 18DNA testing case 5-7 12domain-dependent 206Donoghue case 67-68Doyle J 166Dray William 178 203-204drug/herb example 67Dung P 88 203

embedding 163embryo sac formation example 177empathy 167 203 207endoxa 154Ennis Robert H 131entanglement 147-49enthymemes 5 80-81

defined 14 131problem of 242

epistemic closure 96 113eristic dialogue 27ethotic ad hominem argument 11Euthydemus example 40 74evidence

character 102 153 166circumstantial 157-58evaluation 169fixation of 151forensic 104 163lack of 102legal 75-76 103205production of 231relevant 105 130testimonial 151 157-58testing of 153weight of 96

Index 265

evidential factscircumstantial 8testimonial 8

ex silentio argument 87 96examination 94

cross-examination 152defined 153

described 152dialogue aspects of 153 154goal of 153process of 152-53

examination dialogue 154defined 154 156

exetastic arguments 155described 155

experience-based generalization 36 44explanation

analysis 175 191asymmetry 207based on 176best 104 160 199 200-202competing 201deep 177defined 161 191 193 204 205dialectical 196

characteristics of 209-210distinguished 192evaluation 199goal 206 207good 194-95human 203identification 199in history 175 181 203 204low-level 201new dialectical theory of 195-97

problem with 206pragmatics of 181purpose of 195question answering 196-97reasoning in 185scientific 190 199 201 204 205 212speech act conditions for 197-99stages 210strategic 177 178trace 177

executionextrapolation 125 127-28

factors 145-46antecedent 180

fairness doctrine 219 221

fallacies 38 105of irrelevance 117of relevance 117

fallacy of accident 40fallacy of converse accident 40fallacy of hasty generalization 38 39 41

73fallacy of ignoratio elenchi 117 138

requirements for 117fallacy of secundum quid 41fallacy of wrong conclusion 139 140Farley Arthur M 17Faye Jan 191Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 76-77

140 157 166 213rule 401 130 132

controversial 132rule 404 153rule 608 154

feedback 174 209 211Feteris Eveline T 153Finocchiaro Maurice 204foreign spy case 101-102fossils example 104Freeman James B 17Freeman Kathleen 17Friedman Michael 133 204Frye criterion 76-77

inadequacy of 77

Gardenfors Peter 165general acceptance test 76-77general background information 36general knowledge generalizations 37 43general law 179generalizations 15 49 167 210

absolute 36 54 62 70 179 185 208general law 179-80

absolute universal 36 54-55 62ambivalence 37belief 36 44characteristics of 42-43common sense 36 138 241dangers of 38defeasible 39 53 56 60 72 108 184

185 187defined 42 54 68 69domain specific 218empirical 43evaluation 73exceptions to 182

266 Index

existential 54expected 208fallibility 36faultless 185generic statement 79implicit 44importance of 229n7inductive 39 54 55 79 184legal 36 37 41 68 74

importance of 47levels of 68presumptive 36 54 58-59 60 184

defeasible 185qualifier gaps 73

probabilistic 36qualifications of 40 60qualified 79 106types of 43 184universal 60 79

counter-example 73Given 176 205 209goal 22 174 176 187 207

conflicting 175covering 200parsimony 200subversion 117

Goldberg Steven H 93 99 102 118 153231

Goodwin Jean 57Grennan Wayne 236Grice H Paul

on conversation 196 207 245 246Grootendorst Rob 24 163 207guess

best 160Guthrie WKC 155-56

Aristotle interpreted 156

Halonen Ilpo 204Hamblin Charles L 197 211

Aristotle analyzed by 155-56dialogue theory of 92 94 210formal theory of 21-22game 164relevance 116

Hart HLA 239hearsay example 40 74Hempel Carl J. 178-80 183Hintikka Jaakko 204Hitchcock David 26-27Honore AM 239

horrible crime of murder example 117-18 128 129 138 139

Hurley Patrick 39 54-55 139 183-84 192194

HYPO system 144hypotheses 141 146

defined 145generation 200testing 200

implications 233inconsistency 165inductive fallacy 39inductive-statistical explanations (I-S)

179-80problems with 182-83

inferenceabductive 160-61

argumentation scheme 161-62criticism of 72-73deductive 69

monotonicity 59deductively valid 55fallacious 41forward moving defeasible 237graphs 88lack-of-evidence 60lack-of-knowledge 161link 7plausible 58presumptive

default 62rules of 216 218

inference to the best explanation 104106 160 168

infinite regress dialogue 21 29 96information-seeking type of dialogue 26inquiry 25

cumulative 28interlocutors 154internal stability adjustment 166INUS Condition test 239Irandoust H 177 178irrelevance 117irrelevant arguments 232

Joseph HWB 40Josephson John R 176 182 185 196 199-

200 205 209Josephson Susan 176 182 185 196 199-

200 205 209

Index 267

Keppens Jeroen 103 104 141Kienpointer Manfred 215 217 238Kitcher Philip 181 204KNIGHT system 176 177 180 182knowledge base 241-242knowledge-based systems 177Krabbe Erik CW 92 103 164 166Kruiger Tjark 236

lack of evidence argument 87 96lack of knowledge 74 96language

clarity 207emotive 38 46indicator words 4 82 120natural 4 82 83 95 222 247understandable 190

law 183lawyer argument 83least plausibility rule 59legal argumentation 65 81 151

abductive 106burden of proof 102presumption 88relevance 120

Leonard David P 93 99 102 118 153 231Lester J 176 177letter example 132-36 138

Araucaria diagram 134 135 135key list 133

line of reasoning 8linking 187locution see also speech act 21-22 92Loftus Elisabeth 151logic 240

autoepistemic 56 63 181erotetic 196

logical empiricism 178Lorenzen School in Germany 94

Macagno Fabrizio 242Mackenzie Jim 92Mackie John L 239Mans Dieter 159matter of fact test 192-94McBurney Peter 26-27McCarthy tribunal 100-101medical diagnosis 165 180 182 199-201

aim of 201Michael Jerome 119Miers David 67

missing property generalization 50modus ponens 7 15 94

defeasible (DMP) 61 81-82 83 233argumentation scheme 107

strict (SMP) 81-82 233modus non excipiens61monotonicity 59Moore Robert C 173 176 209. 210Morgan Edmund L 132Moulin B 177 178mumps example 180

Nance Dale A 132new dialectic 195new shoes case 85negative argument from ignorance

scheme 98negative reasoning from a knowledge

base 97negotiation dialogue 26 210

argumentation in 26goal 116 126

Norvig Peter 194-95

Occam's razor 200Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie 236online dispute resolution (ODR) 248openness to defeat condition (OTD)

108-109 110 111

painting example 121-23key list for 121-22

Palmer Andrew 213Park Roger 93 99 102 118 153 231parking example 139 140Parsons Simon 26-27Pearl Judea 31 88peirastic arguments 154 155Peirce Charles S 104 159 164Peircian trichotomy 176Peng Yun 199 200Perelman Chaim 236permissive persuasion dialogue (PPD)

95persuasion 25

rational 93 95 126types of 25

persuasion dialogue 93argumentation in 26characteristic of 23 25critical discussion 24

268 Index

normative requirements 23-24purpose 126relevance 24

plan recognition 175 202planning 175Plato 154plausibility 46 58 59

defined 170pleading 17 32Pollock John L 71 72 88 89 91 111 149Porter B 176 177Prakken Henry 18 59 87 88 89 113 233

237practical reasoning 10practical wisdom 174precedent 83prejudice 117prejudice example 39 73-74premise 215

completeness 66implicit 83 121 186 226lack of knowledge 66missing 81 128 138unstated 14

presupposition 187Preyer Gerhard 159Prior Analytics 41probability 185probative weight 120 130proof 192

deductive 182described 194standard of 102

proponent 1 17 45 92 116 173goal 126thesis 125

propositionrelevcondiant 223

qualifier 73quantifier 54 69

absolutely universal 69 79generally universal 69universal 63 183 184

types of 185quarrel 27question

backup evidence 12consistency 12critical 73 78 150 240245expertise 12

explanation-seeking why question176

field 12opinion 12reply 209trustworthiness 12types of 197why-question 22 187 211

contrastive feature of 191

radiator dialogue 186-91 195-96rainy day case 80-81ratio decidendi 144reasonable 31reasoning 194

abductive 103 159 161-63 206 238retroductive 161

case-based (CBR) 144chain of 130circular 200deductive 159 179defeasible 56 88defined209epistemic 88faulty inductive 73-74hypothesis-and-test (HAT) 199 201

goal 201hypothetical 194inductive 159 169 179logical 178-79negative 97 161nonmonotonic 97plausible 58

evaluating 169sequence of 190simulative 203

reasons 92n4 202rebuttal 94rebutting defeaters 71-72 90red herring fallacy 139 140

collapse 139red marbles example 159-61red object example 71-72 89-91 104reduction 204Reed Chris 233 242reenactment 168refutation 52 71 148

conclusive 149misconception of 117

Reggia James A 199 200

Index 269

Reiter Raymond 59 66 97 101-102 165166

relevance 116 244conditional 115 132 133 218 222 227defined 118determining 227

steps for 137dialectical 125 126

requirements of 126failure of 140judging 126 222legal 115 117 127 142

defined 118logical 118 225

defined 118problem of 243process of determining 232

Renooij Silja 237Rescher Nicholas 59 185respondent 1 17 45 92 116 173

thesis 125retraction 25 28 110

conditions for 166rigorous persuasion dialogues (RPDs)

95rhetoric 240rope example 91Roth Bram 147 148rules 83 216 241

admissibility 33commitment 95 108 164default 86-86 88dialogue 21exceptions to 56 107general 67 104least plausible premise 59 130 131

169maxmin 131of law 221procedural 30 153strict 82trial 93win-loss 21 92

Russell Stuart J 194-95

Sacco and Vanzetti case 8 36 56Salmon Wesley C 204Sartor Giovanni 87 88 89 145Schank Roger C 175Schurz Gerhard 204Schum David A 8 31 36 56 233

diagramming 53science of proof 93 118 119 138scientific discovery 204scientific generalizations 36 43scientific proofs 154scientific truth 36script 157 167 175Scriven Michael 25 181 238Sextus Empiricus 91 170-71Sidgwick Alfred 56 57 72 185-86situationally disqualifying ad hominem

argument 11skidding example 237slippery slope argument 11Socrates 40 55 154-55 197speech acts 21 19 92 173 176 211speed limit example 64-65

inference diagram 64stages 111

argumentation 24closing 24 25confrontation 24opening 24

stasis theory 232statement

general 54particular 54

straw man fallacy 24 131Strong John W 231student essay example (a) 84student essay example (b) 86

tacticsdeceptive 38persuasive 117

testimonyexpert 218hearsay 40witness 77 78 94 158

fallibility of 150Thagard Paul 201Theophrastus' Rule 59theory 145theory of action 69Thompson WB 178threat 126Tillers Peter 119 133tort argument 82Toulmin Stephen 106-107 246toxic tort cases 239tree diagrams 31-32 72

270 Index

trialadversarial 151 152 153common law 93criminal 2 65 117network of argumentation 153 156rules 93 1125??? 118 153stages of 93-94types of 31

Trout JD 204Tweety argument/inference 58-63 70-71

79 108 184-85defeasibility 79 87 109

Twining William 9 36 37 38 42-44 4857 67 93 118 230 231 233

ultimate probandum 2 18 119-21 127130 138 139 223negation of 228

Umilian case 8undercutter 50 82 88 111 148 149undercutting defeaters 71-72 90understanding

defined 204lack of 205nature of 204psychological feeling of 196 202relative to knowledge 202scientific 206subjective 195transmission of 181

undue influence case 219key list for 220-221

unification 204unpaid suit example 124-25

key list for 124

values 145-46van Dyck Maarten 205van Eemeren Frans 24 163 207 236van Fraasen Bas 196 210van Koppen Peter J 46

Vancouver Airport example 66Verheij Bart 61 82 147 148 233 242 247von Wright Georg Henrik 202 205 211

Wagenaar Willem A 46Walton Douglas 92 139-40 164 166 175

194 233generalizations 54 242

warrant 5 53 80 81 87 106 106n8 109122 130defined 47

Weber Erik 205Whatley Richard 10n5Wick MR 178Wigmore John H. 1 8 9 10n5 35 44 48

51 56 115 125burden of persuasion 230-231charts xii 9 31 53 57-58 78 120 138

231 233evidence 157inferences 56-57on relevance 119 130 141probative weight 130risk of non-persuasion 230-231science of proof 118 138

wild animals example 145-47Wilma's pen example 97-98witness

biased 46 57commitment 151credibility of 14 36defined 12examination of 152expert 5testimony 13 77 78 94 158

fallibility 150Woods John 159wrongful conviction cases 150-51

Zeleznikow John 103 104 141zero-sum game 112