Abstract
We present a logical framework allowing us to express assessment of facts (is it proven?) and arguments (is it sound?) together with a proof system to answer these questions. Our motivation is to clarify the notion of validity in the context of logic-based arguments along different aspects (such as the formulas used and the inference scheme). Originality lies in the possibility for the user to design their own argument schemes. We show that classical inference obtains when arguments are based on classical schemes (e.g. Hilbert axioms). We go beyond classical logic by distinguishing “proven” formulas from “uncontroversial” ones (whose negation is not proven). Hence a formal definition of a fallacious argument: it uses controversial formulas or schemes recognized as illicit. We express some rational arguments and fallacies in the form of schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The ex falso quodlibet expresses that from inconsistency anything can be deduced.
- 2.
- 3.
Also called False Dichotomy when the premises posit just two alternatives.
- 4.
This is short for post hoc ergo propter hoc: “after this, therefore because of this.”.
- 5.
There could be any number of items in the series of projected consequences.
- 6.
This fallacy occurs when the circle is enlarged to include more than one step: The conclusion p is supported by premise q, which in turn is supported by p (though there could be any number of intervening steps).
- 7.
One application is the legal principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
References
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks. J. Appl. Non-class. Log. 23(3), 229–267 (2013)
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In: 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 38–42 (2002)
Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P., Leng, P.: A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. In: 12th Annual Conference Expert Systems & Applications, pp. 105–113 (1992)
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: 9th Conference on Uncertainty in AI, pp. 411–419 (1993)
Besnard, P., et al.: Introducing structured argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)
Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., de Saint Cyr, F.D., Hecham, A.: Formalizing cognitive acceptance of arguments: durum wheat selection interdisciplinary study. Minds Mach. 27(1), 233–252 (2017)
D’Agostino, M., Modgil, S.: Classical logic, argument and dialectic. Artif. Intell. J. 262, 15–51 (2018)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. J. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: 9th Conference on Uncertainty in AI, pp. 114–121 (1993)
FIPA: ACL message structure specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2002). http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061/SC00061G.html. Accessed 30 June 2004
Goranko, V.: Refutation systems in modal logic. Stud. Log. 53(2), 299–324 (1994)
Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. J. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007)
Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen, London (1970)
Hunter, A.: Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments. In: 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 89–94 (2008)
Johnson, R.H., Blair, J.A.: Logical Self-defense. IDEA, New York (2006)
Kelley, D.: The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. W.W. Norton & Company, New York (2013)
Lorenz, K., Lorenzen, P.: Dialogische Logik. WBG, Darmstadt (1978)
Lukasiewicz, J.: Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1957)
Mackenzie, J.D.: Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J. Philos. Log. 8(1), 117–133 (1979)
Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 6th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. J. 195, 361–397 (2013)
Oetsch, J., Tompits, H.: Gentzen-type refutation systems for three-valued logics with an application to disproving strong equivalence. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6645, pp. 254–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20895-9_28
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Prakken, H., Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J. Log. Comput. 25(5), 1141–1166 (2015)
Singh, M.P.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. Computer 31(12), 40–47 (1998)
Skura, T.: Refutation systems in propositional logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 16, 2nd edn, pp. 115–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_2
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)
Verheij, B.: Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19(3), 347–371 (2005)
Walton, D., Gordon, T.F.: Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law Workshop, pp. 103–111. Wolf Legal Publishers (2005)
Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)
Wigmore, J.H.: The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd edn. Little, Brown (1931)
Woods, J.: Is the theoretical unity of the fallacies possible? Informal Log. XVI, 77–85 (1994)
Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 560–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_3
Yuan, T., Manandhar, S., Kelly, T., Wells, S.: Automatically detecting fallacies in system safety arguments. In: Baldoni, M., et al. (eds.) IWEC/CMNA 2014-2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9935, pp. 47–59. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bisquert, P., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Besnard, P. (2019). Assessing Arguments with Schemes and Fallacies. In: Balduccini, M., Lierler, Y., Woltran, S. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11481. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20528-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20528-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20527-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20528-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)