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.
On Modelling Burdens and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation / H. Prakken; G. Sartor. - STAMPA. - (2011), pp. 83-92. [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.
