• English
  • Deutsch
  • Log In
    Password Login
    Research Outputs
    Fundings & Projects
    Researchers
    Institutes
    Statistics
Repository logo
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
  1. Home
  2. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
  3. Konferenzschrift
  4. Pierson vs. Post Revisited
 
  • Details
  • Full
Options
2006
Conference Paper
Title

Pierson vs. Post Revisited

Abstract
The Pierson vs. Post case [1] has become an important benchmark in the field of Al and Law for computational models of argumentation. In [2] Bench-Capon used Pierson vs. Post to motivate the use of values and value preferences in his theory-construction account of legal argument. And in a more a recent paper by Atkinson. Bench-Capon and McBurney [3]. it was used to illustrate a formalization of an argumentation scheme for practical reasoning. Here we offer yet another reconstruction of Pierson vs. Post, using our Carneadcs Argumentation Framework. a formal mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation based on Walton's theory of argumentation [4]. and compare it to this prior work. Carneades. named in honor of the Greek skeptic philosopher who emphasized the importance of plausible reasoning, applies proof standards [5] to determine the defensibility of arguments and the acceptability of statements oil an issue-by-issue basis.
Author(s)
Gordon, T.F.
Walton, D.
Mainwork
Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006  
Conference
International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA) 2006  
Language
English
Fraunhofer-Institut für Offene Kommunikationssysteme FOKUS  
  • Cookie settings
  • Imprint
  • Privacy policy
  • Api
  • Contact
© 2024