|
|||||
|
|
Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations |
|
| Authors: | Floris Bex Henry Prakken Chris Reed Douglas Walton |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; E-mail: 2. Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands 3. Division of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK; E-mail: 4. Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3B 3E9; E-mail: |
| 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. |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ | |