On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse,...
-
Upload
mercedes-gravley -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse,...
![Page 1: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue
Henry PrakkenCOMMA-08
Toulouse, 28-05-2008
![Page 2: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview The structure of arguments: overview of
state-of-the art Argument schemes A legal example
Abstraction in dialogue Combining modes of reasoning
Conclusions
![Page 3: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The structure of arguments: current accounts Assumption-based approaches
T = theory A = assumptions, - is conflict relation on A R = inference rules A1 A yields an argument for p if A1 T |-R p A2 for q attacks A1 if q - a for some a A1
Inference-rule approaches T = theory R = inference rules, is conflict relation on R T1 T yields an argument for p if T1|-R p T’2 attacks T1 if T1 applies r1 and T2 applies r2 and
r2 r1
![Page 4: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The structure of arguments:An integrated view
Arguments have: Premises
Of various types A conclusion Ways to get from premises to conclusion
Of various types So arguments can be attacked on:
Their premises Some types excluded
Their conclusion The connection between premises and conclusion
Some types excluded
![Page 5: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
“Persons have the capacity to perform legal acts,
unless the law provides otherwise”
![Page 6: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Minor
Person
R2
< 18
Exc(R1)
![Page 7: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Minor
Person
R2
< 18
Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
Exc(R1)
Parents know
Parents: “married”
![Page 8: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Minor
Person
R2
< 18
Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
Exc(R1)
Parents know
Parents: “married”
Biased
Parents Parents are biased
“Undercutters”
Undercutter!
![Page 9: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Argument schemes
Many arguments (and attacks) follow patterns Much work in argumentation theory
(Perelman, Toulmin, Walton, ...) Argument schemes Critical questions
![Page 10: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Witness testimony(Walton 1996)
Critical questions: Is W really in the position to know about P? Did W really say that P? Is W biased?
Witness W is in the position to now about PW says that P Therefore (presumably), P is the case
![Page 11: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Expert testimony(Walton 1996)
Critical questions: Is E a genuine expert on D? Did E really say that P? Is P really within D? Is E biased? Is P consistent with what other experts say? Is P consistent with known evidence?
E is expert on DE says that PP is within D Therefore (presumably), P is the case
![Page 12: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
From evidence to hypothesis(Walton 1996)
Critical questions: Is it the case that if P is true then Q is true? Has Q been observed? Could there be another reason why Q has been
observed?
If P is the case, then Q will be observed Q has been observedTherefore (presumably), P is the case
![Page 13: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
What is the logic of argument schemes? (1)
Generalised conditional premise e.g. Katzav & Reed
Defeasible inference rule e.g. me, Gordon(?), Verheij(?)
PremisesIf Premises then typically Conclusion Therefore (presumably), Conclusion
Premises Therefore (presumably), Conclusion
![Page 14: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Argumentation schemes in AI
Pollock’s reasons Perception Memory Induction Statistical syllogism Temporal persistence ...
![Page 15: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
What can be done witharguments in dialogue?
State them (step-by-step or at once) Speech acts for claiming, arguing
Attack them (stating a counterargument)
React to the premises Speech acts for challenging, conceding, retracting, denying statements
React to the inference(?)
![Page 16: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Theory building in dialogue In my approach to (persuasion)
dialogue: Agents build a joint theory during the
dialogue An argument graph
Result (ideally) determined by arguments with no challenged or retracted premises
![Page 17: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
LegalCapacityclaim
![Page 18: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
LegalCapacityclaim why
![Page 19: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
claim whysince
![Page 20: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
![Page 21: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
why
![Page 22: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since
![Page 23: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since
concede
![Page 24: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
since
concede
![Page 25: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
since
whyconcede
![Page 26: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
since
why
Parents know
Parents: “married”
since
concede
![Page 27: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
since
why
Parents know
Parents: “married”
since
concede
concede
![Page 28: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since
concede
Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
since
why
Parents know
Parents: “married”
since
concede
Biased
Parents Parents are biased
since
![Page 29: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
LegalCapacity
Person Exc(R1) R1
Exc(R1)
claim whysince
since
Minor R2
Exc(R1)
Person < 18
why
since
concede
Minor
Person < 18 Married R3
since
why
Parents know
Parents: “married”
since
concede
Biased
Parents Parents are biased
since
why
![Page 30: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Reacting to inferences in dialogue
Critical questions of argument schemes: either ask about a premise
covered above or ask about defeaters. Since schemes
are defeasibly valid: Don’t ask the question but state a
counterargument But there is another way of asking
about an inference …
![Page 31: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Case study: Murder in a Frisian Boarding House (Floris Bex)
Why?
![Page 32: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Why?
![Page 33: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Why?
![Page 34: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Case study: Murder in a Frisian Boarding House (Floris Bex)
Why?Why?
![Page 35: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Abductive reasoning
Louw has a fractured skull
Louw has brain damage
Louw dies
![Page 36: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Case study: Murder in a Frisian Boarding House (Floris Bex)
Why?Why?
Why?
![Page 37: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Abductive reasoning
Louw has a fractured skull
Louw has brain damage
Louw dies
Louw was hit onthe head by anangular object
Louw fell
![Page 38: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Dialogue about abductive model
Louw has a fractured skull
Louw has brain damage
Louw dies
Louw was hit onthe head by anangular object
Louw fell
Why the
facts?
![Page 39: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Dialogue about abductive model
Louw has a fractured skull
Louw has brain damage
Louw dies
Louw was hit onthe head by anangular object
Louw fell
(4) Pathologist’sreport
(1) Police report(coroner)
![Page 40: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Dialogue about abductive model
Louw has a fractured skull
Louw has brain damage
Louw dies
Louw was hit onthe head by anangular object
Louw fell
(4) Pathologist’sreport
(1) Police report(coroner)
Why the causal
relations?
![Page 41: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Dialogue about abductive model
Louw has a fractured skull
Louw has brain damage
Louw dies
Louw was hit onthe head by anangular object
Louw fell
(4) Pathologist’sreport
(1) Police report(coroner)
![Page 42: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Case study: Murder in a Frisian Boarding House (Floris Bex)
Why?
Why?
![Page 43: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Conclusions from the case study Steps in an argument sometimes
compress complex lines of reasoning Dialogue systems should allow for
‘unpacking’ Sometimes dialogues build theories that
are not argument graphs Sometimes these theories combine
several forms of reasoning A ‘logic’ for such combinations is needed
![Page 45: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
R1: Kill & Intent MurderR2: Self-defence R1…S hit V, V died from hammer
Murder?
Default logic
![Page 46: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
R1: Kill & Intent MurderR2: Self-defence R1…S hit V, V died from hammer
Murder?
Default logic
O/I transformers
Causal modelV’s blood on hammerObservations
V died from hammer?
IBE
S hit V?
…..……
![Page 47: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
R1: Kill & Intent MurderR2: Self-defence R1…S hit V, V died from hammer
Murder?
Default logic
EvidenceCond probsPriors
P(V’s blood on hammer| E)?
Bayesian PT
O/I transformers
Causal modelV’s blood on hammerObservations
V died from hammer?
IBE
S hit V?
…..……
![Page 48: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
R1: Kill & Intent MurderR2: Self-defence R1…S hit V, V died from hammer
Murder?
Default logic
EvidenceCond probsPriors
P(V’s blood on hammer| E)?
Bayesian PT
Priors?Testimonies
Argumentation
O/I transformers
Ev? CPs?
Causal modelV’s blood on hammerObservations
V died from hammer? S hit V?
…..……
Obs?
CM?
![Page 49: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
R1: Kill & Intent MurderR2: Self-defence R1…S hit V, V died from hammer
Murder?
EvidenceCond probsPriors
P(V’s blood| E)?
Priors?Testimonies
Procedural law…
Proof standard?
Ev? CPs?
Causal modelV’s blood on hammerObservations
V died from hammer? S hit V?
Obs?
CM?
…..……
EvidenceCond probsPriors’
P(V’s blood| E)?
Causal modelObservations
V died from hammer?
R1: Kill & Intent MurderR2: Self-defence R1…S hit V
Murder?
![Page 50: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Final conclusions Inference:
Study the combination of reasoning forms
Be open-minded: don’t force everything into the format of arguments
Dialogue: Allow that argument can be about
something else than arguments Allow for switching between levels of
abstraction
![Page 51: On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse, 28-05-2008.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062712/56649c785503460f9492d628/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Abduction(Walton 2001)
Critical questions: How good is E in itself as an explanation of F? How much better is E1 than E2,..., En? Are there further findings that change the assessment of E1? Are there further explanations that change the assessment of E?
F is a set of findingsE1, ..., En all explain FE1 best explains F Therefore (presumably), E1 is the case