Abstract
Logic is the science that deals with the formal principles and criteria of validity of patterns of inference. This chapter surveys logics for a particular group of patterns of inference, namely those where arguments for and against a certain claim are produced and evaluated, to test the tenability of the claim. Such reasoning processes are usually analysed under the common term ‘defeasible argumentation’. We shall illustrate this form of reasoning with a dispute between two persons, A and B. They disagree on whether it is morally acceptable for a newspaper to publish a certain piece of information concerning a politician’s private life.1 Let us assume that the two parties have reached agreement on the following points.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
L. Amgoud &: C. Cayrol, Integrating preference orderings into argument-based reasoning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning (ECSQARU-FAPR’97). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1244, 159–170. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1997.
N. Asher &; M. Morreau, Commonsense entailment: a modal theory of nonmonotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’90). Lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence 478, 1–30. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1990.
A.B. Baker &; M.L. Ginsberg, A theorem prover for prioritized circumscription. Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 463–467, 1989.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois &; H. Prade, Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 411–419. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers Inc, 1993.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois & H. Prade, How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1449–1455, 1995.
A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski & F. Toni, An abstract argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93:63–101, 1997.
G. Brewka, Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1043–1048, 1989.
G. Brewka, Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Common-sense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
G. Brewka, Reasoning about priorities in default logic. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 940–945, 1994.
G. Brewka, A logical reconstruction of Rescher’s theory of formal disputation based on default logic. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 366–370, 1994.
G. Brewka, Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4:19–30, 1996.
C. Cayrol, On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1443–1448, 1995.
C.I. Chesnevar, A.G. Maguitman & R.P. Loui, Logical models of argument. Submitted.
P. Clark, Representing knowledge as arguments: Applying expert system technology to judgemental problem-solving. In Research and Development in Expert Systems VII, eds. T. R. Addis and R. M. Muir, 147–159. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
S. Das, J. Fox, &: P. Krause, A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (1): theoretical foundations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR’96). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1085, 58–72. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996.
J. De Kleer, An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence 28:127–162, 1986.
J. Delgrande, An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: revised report. Artificial Intelligence 36:63–90, 1988.
J. Doyle, Truth Maintenance Systems. Artificial Intelligence 12:231–272, 1979.
P.M. Dung, An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. Proceedings of the Tenth Logic Programming Conference, 616–630. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
P.M. Dung, Logic programming as dialogue games. Report Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1994.
P.M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77:321–357, 1995.
P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski & F. Toni, Synthesis of proof procedures for default reasoning. Proceedings International Workshop on Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR’96), ed. J. Gallagher. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1207, 313–324. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996.
P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski & F. Toni, Argumentation-theoretic proof procedures for default reasoning. Report Department of Computing, Imperial College London, 1997.
M. Elvang-Gøransson & A. Hunter, Argumentative logics: reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data & Knowledge Engineering 16:125–145, 1995.
K. Freeman & A.M. Farley, A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:163–197, 1996. Reprinted in [Prakken & Sartor, 1997a].
D.M. Gabbay, Theoretical Foundations for Non-monotonic Reasoning in Expert Systems, in: Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, ed. K.R. Apt, 439–457. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1985.
D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger & J.A. Robinson, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
A.J. Garcia, G.R. Simari &; C.I. Chesñevar, An argumentative framework for reasoning with inconsistent and incomplete information. Proceedings of the ECAI’98 Workshop on Practical Reasoning and Rationality, Brighton, UK, 1998.
H. Geffner, Beyond negation as failure. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 218–229. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1991.
H. Geffner & J. Pearl, Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53:209–244, 1992.
N. Goodman, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954.
T.F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.
T.F. Gordon & N. Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10–18. New York: ACM Press, 1997.
G. Governatori & M. Maher, An argumentation-theoretic characterization of defeasible logic. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 469–473, 2000.
B.N. Grosof, Prioritizing multiple, contradictory sources in common-sense learning by being told; or, advice-taker meets bureaucracy. Proceedings Common Sense’93: The Second Symposium on Logical formalisations of Common-Sense Reasoning, Austin, Texas, 1993.
J.C. Hage, Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, 1997.
J.C. Hage, R. Leenes & A.R. Lodder, Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2:113–166, 1994.
C.L. Hamblin, Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155, 1971.
S. Hanks &; D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic Logic and Temporal Projection. Artificial Intelligence 33:379–412, 1987.
H.L.A. Hart, The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, n.s. 49 (1948–9), 171–194. Reprinted in Logic and Language. First Series, ed. A.G.N. Flew, 145–166. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951.
J.F. Horty, R.H. Thomasson & D.S. Touretzky, A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence 42:311–348, 1990.
A. Hunter, Using priorities in non-monotonic proof theory. Report Department of Computing, Imperial College London, 1993.
H. Jakobovits, On the Theory of Argumentation Frameworks. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Free University Brussels, 2000.
H. Jakobovits, & D. Vermeir, Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 9:215–262, 1999.
A.C. Kakas, P. Mancarella & P.M. Dung, The acceptability semantics for logic programs. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming, 509–514. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
A.C. Kakas &: F. Toni, Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 9:515–562, 1999.
K. Konolige, Defeasible argumentation in reasoning about events. In Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, eds. Z.W. Ras and L. Saitta, 380–390. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.
R.A. Kowalski & F. Toni, Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:275–296, 1996. Reprinted in [Prakken & Sartor, 1997a].
S. Kraus, D. Lehmann &: M. Magidor, Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models, and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44:167–207, 1990.
P. Krause, S.J. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gøransson & J. Fox, A logic of argumentation for uncertain reasoning. Computational Intelligence 11:113–131, 1995.
D.K. Lewis, Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
F. Lin & Y. Shoham, Argument systems. A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 245–255. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, 1989.
A.R. Lodder, DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialog Games. To appear in Kluwer’s Law and Philosophy Library, 1999.
R.P. Loui, Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 2:100–106, 1987.
R.P. Loui, Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21–30. New York: ACM Press, 1995.
R.P. Loui, Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14:1–38, 1998.
R.P. Loui, J. Norman, J. Olson & A. Merrill, A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 202–211. New York: ACM Press, 1993.
R.P. Loui & J. Norman, Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3:159–189, 1995.
J.D. MacKenzie, Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8:117–133, 1979.
D. Makinson, General Theory of Cumulative Inference, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, eds. M. Reinfrank et al, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346, 1–18. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1989.
D. Makinson & K. Schlechta, Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the ‘directly sceptical’ approach to inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48:199–209, 1991.
W. Marek, A. Nerode & J. Remmel, A theory of non-monotonic rule systems I. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 1:241–273, 1990.
W. Marek, A. Nerode &: J. Remmel, A theory of non-monotonic rule systems II. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 5:229–263, 1992.
J.P. Martins &; M. Reinfrank (eds.), Truth Maintenance Systems. Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 515, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1991.
J. McCarthy & P.J. Hayes, Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Intelligence 4, eds. B. Meltzer et al., 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.
D.N. Nute, Defeasible logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, eds. D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger & J.A. Robinson, 355–395. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
D.N. Nute, Apparent obligation. In Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. D.N. Nute, 287–315. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Synthese Library, 1997.
D.N. Nute & K. Erk, Defeasible logic. Report AI Center, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 1995.
S. Parsons, C. Sierra & N.R. Jennings, Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8:261–292, 1998.
J.L. Pollock, The Structure of Epistemic Justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, monograph series, vol. 4, 62–78, 1970.
J.L. Pollock, Knowledge and Justification. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.
J.L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:481–518, 1987.
J.L. Pollock, A theory of defeasible reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 6:33–54, 1991.
J.L. Pollock, How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57:1–42, 1992.
J.L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
D.L. Poole, On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 144–147, 1985.
D.L. Poole, A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36:27–47, 1988.
H. Prakken, An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9:91–132, 1993.
H. Prakken, A semantic view on reasoning about priorities (extended abstract). Proceedings of the Second Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht, 152–159, 1995.
H. Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, 1997.
H. Prakken, Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report). Proceedings of the 4th Model Age Workshop ‘Formal Models of Agents’, Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1760, 202–215. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1999.
H. Prakken, On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’2000), Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1919, 224–238. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2000.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor, A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:331–368, 1996. Reprinted in [Prakken & Sartor, 1997a].
H. Prakken &: G. Sartor, (eds.) 1997a. Logical Models of Legal Argument. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. (reprint of Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 1996).
H. Prakken & G. Sartor, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7:25–75, 1997.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor, Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:231–287, 1998.
R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132, 1980.
N. Rescher, Plausible Reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976.
N. Rescher, Dialectics: a Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1977.
W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.
G. Sartor, A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7:212–226, 1994.
Y. Shoham, Reasoning about Change. Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988.
G.R. Simari, C.I. Chesñevar & A.J. Garcia, The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, Conception, Chile, 1994.
G.R. Simari & R.P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53:125–157, 1992.
R.J.C.M. Starmans, Logic, Argument, and Commonsense. Doctoral Dissertation, Tilburg University, 1996.
M. Thielscher, A nonmonotonic disputation-based semantics and proof procedure for logic programs. Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, 483–497. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
S.E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
B. Verheij, Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maastricht, 1996.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk, The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 526–534. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1991. Also published in Diamonds and Defaults, Studies in Language, Logic, and Information, Vol. 1, 359–380. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Free University Amsterdam, 1993.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Defeasible dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 3:317–334, 1993.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk, The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning. Argumentation 9:305–342, 1995.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90:225–279, 1997.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. To appear in Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1999.
G.A.W. Vreeswijk & H. Prakken, Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’2000), Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1919, 239–253. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2000.
D.N. Walton & E.C.W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G. (2001). Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5877-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0456-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive