×

Assessing the epistemological relevance of Dung-style argumentation theories. (English) Zbl 1380.03011

Summary: In a seminal paper P. M. Dung [Artif. Intell. 77, No. 2, 321–357 (1995; Zbl 1013.68556)] developed the theory of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), which has remained a pivotal point of reference for research in AI and argumentation ever since. This paper assesses the merits of Dung’s theory from an epistemological point of view. It argues that, despite its prominence in AI, the theory of AFs is epistemologically flawed. More specifically, abstract AFs don’t provide a normatively adequate model for the evaluation of rational, multi-proponent controversy. Different interpretations of Dung’s theory may be distinguished. Dung’s intended interpretation collides with basic principles of rational judgement suspension. The currently prevailing knowledge base interpretation ignores relevant arguments when assessing proponent positions in a debate. It is finally suggested that abstract AFs be better understood as a paraconsistent logic, rather than a theory of real argumentation.

MSC:

03A05 Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations

Citations:

Zbl 1013.68556

Software:

Carneades
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Alchourron, C.E., Peter, G., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change - partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbo. Log. 50(2), 510-530 (1985) · Zbl 0578.03011 · doi:10.2307/2274239
[2] Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) Scalable Uncertainty Management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 42-55. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010) · Zbl 1284.03129
[3] Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1-3), 197-215 (2002) · Zbl 1002.68172 · doi:10.1023/A:1014490210693
[4] Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Autom. Reason. 29(2), 125-169 (2002) · Zbl 1056.68589 · doi:10.1023/A:1021603608656
[5] Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Cartwright, D., Wyner, A.: Semantic models for policy deliberations. In: Ashley, K.D., Van Engers, T.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), pp 81-90. ACM, New York (2011)
[6] Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 25-44. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009) · Zbl 1168.68566
[7] Bench-Capon, T.: Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Inf. Log. 22(2), 231-245 (2003)
[8] Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: Abstract argumentation and values. In: Rahwan, I, Simari, G (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 45-64. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)
[9] Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619-641 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68560 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001
[10] Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2008) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262026437.001.0001
[11] Betz, G.: Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs. Synthese Library. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)
[12] Betz, G., Cacean, S.: Ethical Aspects of Climate Engineering. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe (2012)
[13] Betz, G., Cacean, S.: The Moral Controversy About Climate Engineering - An Argument Map, Version 2012-02-13. KIT, Karlsruhe (2012)
[14] Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(1-2), 63-101 (1997) · Zbl 1017.03511 · doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
[15] Brewka, G., Gordon, T.F.: Carneades and abstract dialectical frameworks: A reconstruction. Comput. Models Argument: Proc. Comma 2010(216), 3-12 (2010)
[16] Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectic frameworks. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Proceeding of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp 102-111. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California (2010)
[17] Brewka, G., Dunne, P.E., Woltran, S.: Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks and standard afs. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI’11 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp 780-785. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California (2011)
[18] Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286-310 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68562 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.02.003
[19] Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. 8th European Conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005. Proceedings, pp 378-389. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg (2005) · Zbl 1122.68639
[20] Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 65-84. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009) · Zbl 1191.68480
[21] Carlos, I.C., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337-383 (2000) · doi:10.1145/371578.371581
[22] Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171 (10-15), 730-753 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68563 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.012
[23] De ArgumentenFabriek: Argument map shale gas production in EU member states. Technical report, De ArgumentenFabriek, 2012. http://www.argumentenfabriek.nl/argument-map-shale-gas-production-eu-member-stateshttp://www.argumentenfabriek.nl/argument-map-shale-gas-production-eu-member-states
[24] Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321-357 (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556 · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
[25] Engelhardt, H.T., Caplan, A.L.: Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987) · doi:10.1017/CBO9780511628719
[26] Friedman, J.: Suspended judgment. Philos. Stud. 162(2), 165-181 (2013) · doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9753-y
[27] Gijzel, B.V., Prakken, H.: Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument Comput. 3(1), 21-47 (2012) · doi:10.1080/19462166.2012.661766
[28] Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 875-896 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68566 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010
[29] Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux : Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1988) · Zbl 1229.03008
[30] Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics: Theory Change and Database Updating, vol. 11 of Applied Logic Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999) · Zbl 0947.03023 · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0814-3
[31] Hansson, S.O.: Logic of belief revision. In: Zalta, E.N (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2009 edition (2009)
[32] Horn, R.: Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? 7 Maps and Handbook. Macro VU, Bainbridge Island (1998)
[33] Kitcher, P.: The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)
[34] Lumer, C.: The epistemological theory of argument - how and why? Inf. Log. 25 (3), 213-242 (2005)
[35] Machamer, P., Pera, M., Baltas, A.: Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)
[36] Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361-397 (2013) · Zbl 1270.68284 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008
[37] Pollock. J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 11(4), 481-518 (1987) · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
[38] Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build A Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1995)
[39] Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93-124 (2011) · doi:10.1080/19462160903564592
[40] Prakken, H.: An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy. Stud. Log. 4(1), 65-86 (2011)
[41] Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Artif. Intell. Law 20(1), 57-82 (2012) · doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9117-8
[42] Prakken, H., Horty, J.: An appreciation of John Pollock’s work on the computational study of argument. Argument Comput. 3(1), 1-19 (2012) · doi:10.1080/19462166.2012.663409
[43] Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp 219-318. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2nd edn. (2001) · Zbl 1003.03503
[44] Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 321-339. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)
[45] Rahwan, I., Simari, G.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)
[46] Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13(1-2), 81-132 (1980) · Zbl 0435.68069 · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
[47] Rescher, N.: The Coherency Theory of Truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1973)
[48] Rescher, N.: Dialectics. A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany (1977)
[49] Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory Decis. 1(2), 179-217 (1970) · Zbl 0212.31103 · doi:10.1007/BF00154005
[50] Rudwick, M.J.S.: The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge Among Gentlemanly Specialists. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1985) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226731001.001.0001
[51] Sather, T.: Pros and Cons: A Debater’s Handbook. Routledge, London, New York (1999)
[52] Seselja, D., Stra βer, C.: Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates. Synthese 190(12), 2195-2217 (2013) · Zbl 1284.03129 · doi:10.1007/s11229-011-9964-y
[53] Simon, H.A.: Models of Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1982)
[54] Spohn, W.: A brief comparison of Pollock’s defeasible reasoning and ranking functions. Synthese 131(1), 39-56 (2002) · Zbl 0995.03509 · doi:10.1023/A:1015004212541
[55] Spohn, W.: The Laws of Belief : Ranking Theory and Its Philosophical Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697502.001.0001
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.