A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is thus given a Dungean semantics. It is shown to adequately capture shifting proof burdens as well as Carneades' definitions of proof standards.
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (2011). On Modelling Burdens and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation. AMSTERDAM : IOS [10.3233/978-1-60750-981-3-83].
On Modelling Burdens and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation
SARTOR, GIOVANNI
2011
Abstract
A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is thus given a Dungean semantics. It is shown to adequately capture shifting proof burdens as well as Carneades' definitions of proof standards.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
