Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations

Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/towards-a-formal-account-of-reasoning-about-evidence-argumentation-fA9TVCx5Ty
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 7, 2004

References