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

Learn More →

When expert opinion evidence goes wrong

When expert opinion evidence goes wrong This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combining argument schemes with argumentation graphs. Frighteningly, it is also shown by this example that when there are potentially confusing conflicting arguments from expert opinion, a jury can only too easily accept a conclusion prematurely before considering critical questions that need to be asked. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

When expert opinion evidence goes wrong

Walton, Douglas
Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 27 (4) – Mar 16, 2019
Download PDF
33 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/when-expert-opinion-evidence-goes-wrong-xc04jDnjtm
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by Springer Nature B.V.
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence; IT Law, Media Law, Intellectual Property; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1007/s10506-019-09249-w
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combining argument schemes with argumentation graphs. Frighteningly, it is also shown by this example that when there are potentially confusing conflicting arguments from expert opinion, a jury can only too easily accept a conclusion prematurely before considering critical questions that need to be asked.

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals

Published: Mar 16, 2019

References

  • Analysis of evidence: how to do things with facts based on Wigmore’s science of judicial proof
    Anderson, T; Twining, W
  • Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory
    Bex, FJ
  • Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalizations
    Bex, F; Prakken, H; Reed, C; Walton, D
  • Multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases
    Findley, KA; Scott, MS
  • Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system
    Godden, DM; Walton, D
  • Mizrahi and Seidel: experts in confusion
    Hinton, MD
  • Profiles of dialogue for repairing faults in arguments from expert opinion
    Koszowy, M; Walton, D
  • Why arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments
    Mizrahi, M
  • Why arguments from expert opinion are still weak: a reply to Seidel
    Mizrahi, M
  • Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making
    Pennington, N; Hastie, R
  • Legal evidence and burden of proof
    Prakken, H; Sartor, G
  • Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation
    Reed, CA; Rowe, GWA
  • Evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning
    Schum, DA
  • Throwing the baby out with the water: from reasonably scrutinizing authorities to rampant scepticism about expertise
    Seidel, M
  • Theories of evidence: Bentham and Wigmore
    Twining, W
  • Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence
    Wagenaar, WA; Koppen, PJ; Crombag, HFM
  • Appeal to expert opinion
    Walton, D
  • Argumentation schemes
    Walton, D; Reed, C; Macagno, F
  • The principles of judicial proof
    Wigmore, JH