Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This book is on evidence for character judgments, answering questions about how such judgments are and should be supported or refuted by verifiable evidence. For example, if I claim that some particular person has integrity, or does not, what kind of justification should properly be used to support or refute the claim? This book answers the question using a model of abductive reasoning, commonly called inference to the best explanation. The methodology of the book derives from recent work on models of reasoning in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence. The aim is not just to show how character judgments are made, but to show how they should be properly be made based on sound reasoning, in order to avoid errors and superficial judgments of a kind that are common. Character evidence in law is on a razor’s edge. It is generally inadmissible, for it might tend to prejudice a jury, but it is a kind of evidence often needed in trials, for example, to cross-examine a witness. This book shows that we are not as good at judging character as we think, and often make serious mistakes. But it is shown how character judgments can, in some instances, be based on good reasoning supported by factual evidence in a case.

Reputation (Law) --- Examination of witnesses --- Abduction (Logic) --- Artificial intelligence. --- Psychological aspects. --- AI (Artificial intelligence) --- Artificial thinking --- Electronic brains --- Intellectronics --- Intelligence, Artificial --- Intelligent machines --- Machine intelligence --- Thinking, Artificial --- Bionics --- Cognitive science --- Digital computer simulation --- Electronic data processing --- Logic machines --- Machine theory --- Self-organizing systems --- Simulation methods --- Fifth generation computers --- Neural computers --- Logic --- Reasoning --- Syllogism --- Evidence (Law) --- Trial practice --- Witnesses --- Evidence, Character --- Fama publica --- Character evidence --- Law and legislation --- Philosophy of law. --- Criminal Law. --- Philosophy of Law. --- Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History. --- Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law. --- Crime --- Crimes and misdemeanors --- Criminals --- Law, Criminal --- Penal codes --- Penal law --- Pleas of the crown --- Public law --- Criminal justice, Administration of --- Criminal procedure --- Legal status, laws, etc. --- Political science. --- Law—Philosophy. --- Law. --- Criminal law. --- Acts, Legislative --- Enactments, Legislative --- Laws (Statutes) --- Legislative acts --- Legislative enactments --- Jurisprudence --- Legislation --- Administration --- Civil government --- Commonwealth, The --- Government --- Political theory --- Political thought --- Politics --- Science, Political --- Social sciences --- State, The

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Recent work in artificial intelligence has increasingly turned to argumentation as a rich, interdisciplinary area of research that can provide new methods related to evidence and reasoning in the area of law. Douglas Walton provides an introduction to basic concepts, tools and methods in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence as applied to the analysis and evaluation of witness testimony. He shows how witness testimony is by its nature inherently fallible and sometimes subject to disastrous failures. At the same time such testimony can provide evidence that is not only necessary but inherently reasonable for logically guiding legal experts to accept or reject a claim. Walton shows how to overcome the traditional disdain for witness testimony as a type of evidence shown by logical positivists, and the views of trial sceptics who doubt that trial rules deal with witness testimony in a way that yields a rational decision-making process.

Law --- Witnesses. --- Evidence (Law) --- Reasoning. --- Artificial intelligence. --- Relevance (Philosophy) --- Droit --- Témoins --- Preuve (Droit) --- Raisonnement --- Intelligence artificielle --- Pertinence (Logique) --- Methodology. --- Méthodologie --- Evidence (Law). --- Relevance (Philosophy). --- Témoins --- Méthodologie --- Arts and Humanities --- Philosophy --- AI (Artificial intelligence) --- Artificial thinking --- Electronic brains --- Intellectronics --- Intelligence, Artificial --- Intelligent machines --- Machine intelligence --- Thinking, Artificial --- Bionics --- Cognitive science --- Digital computer simulation --- Electronic data processing --- Logic machines --- Machine theory --- Self-organizing systems --- Simulation methods --- Fifth generation computers --- Neural computers --- Argumentation --- Ratiocination --- Reason --- Thought and thinking --- Judgment (Logic) --- Logic --- Extrinsic evidence --- Parol evidence --- Trial evidence --- Actions and defenses --- Judicial process --- Trial practice --- Estoppel --- Testimony --- Eyewitness identification --- Legal reasoning

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The basic question of this monograph is: how should we go about judging arguments to be reasonable or unreasonable? Our concern will be with argument in a broad sense, with realistic arguments in natural language. The basic object will be to engage in a normative study of determining what factors, standards, or procedures should be adopted or appealed to in evaluating an argument as "good," "not-so-good," "open to criticism," "fallacious," and so forth. Hence our primary concern will be with the problems of how to criticize an argument, and when a criticism is reasonably justified.

Logic --- Sofismen --- Logique --- Sophismes --- Logica. --- Fallacies (Logic) --- Logic. --- Argumentation --- Deduction (Logic) --- Deductive logic --- Dialectic (Logic) --- Logic, Deductive --- Intellect --- Philosophy --- Psychology --- Science --- Reasoning --- Thought and thinking --- Errors, Logical --- Sophisms (Logic) --- Sophistry (Logic) --- Judgment (Logic) --- Methodology

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Although many individual fallacies have now been studied and analyzed in the growing literature on argumentation, the concept of fallacy itself has lacked a sufficiently clear meaning to make it as useful as it could be for evaluating arguments. Walton looks at how an argument is used in the context of conversation. He defines a fallacy as a conversational move, or sequence of moves, that is supposed to be an argument that contributes to the purpose of the conversation but in reality interferes with it. The view is a pragmatic one, based on the assumption that when people argue, they do so in a context of dialogue, a conventionalized normative framework that is goal-directed. Such a contextual framework is shown to be crucial in determining whether an argument has been used correctly. Three problems are those of fallacy identification, fallacy analysis, and fallacy evaluation. Walton presents solutions for all three problems by developing new pragmatic structures to display the form of an argument (the so-called argumentation scheme). The fallacy is revealed when it is shown, in a given case, how its form fits into an enveloping normative structure of dialogue. In this book Walton shows how the 25 or so major informal fallacies standardly treated in textbooks are basically reasonable presumptive types of arguments that have been used inappropriately in such a normative model. Another key feature of the book is its demonstration that a fallacy is typically an argument that seems correct when it is not. Walton shows that such an argument is used in a way that disguises a covert, illicit shift from one type of dialogue to another. This novel approach to solving the analysis problem provides a pragmatic way of analyzing a fallacy as a deceptive type of argumentation with an appearance of correctness. Walton suggests that different contexts of dialogue are involved and that fallacies are often associated with a partially concealed illicit shift from one type of dialogue to another.

Fallacies (Logic) --- Logic --- Philosophy --- Philosophy & Religion --- Errors, Logical --- Sophisms (Logic) --- Sophistry (Logic) --- Judgment (Logic) --- Reasoning

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This book examines three areas in which abductive reasoning is especially important: medicine, science, and law. The reader is introduced to abduction and shown how it has evolved historically into the framework of conventional wisdom in logic. Discussions draw upon recent techniques used in artificial intelligence, particularly in the areas of multi-agent systems and plan recognition, to develop a dialogue model of explanation. Cases of causal explanations in law are analyzed using abductive reasoning, and all the components are finally brought together to build a new account of abd

Reasoning. --- Abduction (Logic) --- Logic --- Reasoning --- Syllogism --- Argumentation --- Ratiocination --- Reason --- Thought and thinking --- Judgment (Logic)