Skip Navigation


Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on October 10, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2007 6(1-4):109-117; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/1-4/109    most recent
mgm026v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gordon, T. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Visualizing Carneades argument graphs

Thomas F. Gordon{dagger}

Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS), Berlin, Germany

{dagger} Email: thomas.gordon{at}fokus.fraunhofer.de


  Abstract

Carneades is a computational model of argument based on the state-of-the-art of argumentation theory in philosophy. This article presents a diagramming method for Carneades, similar to Wigmore charts, and illustrates how to map legal evidence using this method. With suitable computer support, in the form of a special purpose argument diagram editor, users need not understand the mathematics of the computational model to make use of its features. Compared to a generic diagram editor, or even special purpose argument diagramming tools based only on informal models of argument, an argument diagramming tool based on the Carneades computational model of argument has the advantage of being able to inform users, in an intuitively comprehensible way, whether or not a claim satisfies a proof standard, given the evidence and other arguments which have been put forward by the parties. The presentation is entirely informal. No prior expertise in argumentation theory, mathematics or computer science is presumed.

Keywords: evidential reasoning; argument structure; argument evaluation; argument visualization; argument diagrams; computational models; artificial intelligence and law

Presented at the workshop on ‘Graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings’ at Cardozo School of Law, New York City, 28–29th January 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.