[en] This study is an approach to encompass uncertainty in the well-known Argumentation Scheme from Negative Consequences and in the more recent “Basic Slippery Slope Argument” proposed by Douglas Walton. This work envisages two new kinds of uncertainty that should be taken into account, one related to time and one related to the material relation between premises and conclusion. Furthermore, it is argued that some modifications to the structure of these Argumentation Schemes or to their Critical Questions could facilitate the process of Knowledge Extraction and modeling from these two argumentative patterns. For example, the study suggests to change the premises of the Basic Slippery Slope related to the Control and the Loss of Control.
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques
Auteur, co-auteur :
LIGA, Davide ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medecine (FSTM)
Palmirani, Monica
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Uncertainty in Argumentation Schemes: Negative Consequences and Basic Slippery Slope
Date de publication/diffusion :
2020
Nom de la manifestation :
CLAR
Date de la manifestation :
26-10-2020
Manifestation à portée :
International
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
Logic and Argumentation
Maison d'édition :
Springer, Cham
Pagination :
259-278
Peer reviewed :
Peer reviewed
Focus Area :
Computational Sciences
Commentaire :
International Conference on Logic and Argumentation
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B., van der Torre, L.: Encompassing uncertainty in argumentation schemes. Front. Connect. Argum. Theory Nat. Lang. Process. 2014 (2014)
Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Reed, C.: On logical specifications of the argument interchange format. J. Log. Comput. 23(5), 951–989 (2013)
Freeman, J.B.: Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure, vol. 10. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2011)
Gabbay, D.M., Giacomin, M., Liao, B., van der Torre, L.: Present and future of formal argumentation. Dagstuhl Reports (2016)
Lode, E.: Slippery slope arguments and legal reasoning. Calif. Law Rev. 87, 1469 (1999)
Macagno, F., Walton, D., Reed, C.: Argumentation schemes. History, classifications, and computational applications. J. Log. Appl. 4(8), 2493–2556 (2017)
Palmirani, M.: A tool to highlight weaknesses and strengthen cases: CISpaces.org. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2018: The Thirty-first Annual Conference, vol. 313, p. 186. IOS Press (2018)
Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artif. Intell. Law 11(2), 167–195 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B: ARTI.0000046008.49443.36
