Abstract
We formalize networks of authored arguments. These networks are then mapped to \(ASPIC{^+}\) theories that subsequently instantiate Extended Argumentation Frameworks. Evaluation of arguments in the latter determines the status of the arguments in the source networks. The methodology is illustrated through a collaboration between scholars of South Asian philosophy, logicians and formal argumentation theorists, analyzing excerpts of Sanskrit texts concerning a controversial normative debate within the philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā.
Work partially funded by the projects WWTF MA16-028 and FWF W1255-N23.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Different interpretations of these arguments might be implemented in \(ASPIC{^+}\), and compared and evaluated on their logical consequences.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)
Brick, D.: The dharmaśāstric debate on widow-burning. J. Am. Orient. Soc. 130(2), 203–223 (2010)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)
Ciabattoni, A., Freschi, E., Genco, F.A., Lellmann, B.:
deontic logic: proof theory and applications. In: De Nivelle, H. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9323, pp. 323–338. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24312-2_22Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Freschi, E., Ollett, A., Pascucci, M.: Duty and Sacrifice. A Logical Analysis of the
Theory of Vedic Injunctions. History and Philosophy of Logic (2019, forthcoming)Hunter, A., et al.: Tutorials on structured argumentation. Argument Comput. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)
Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9–10), 901–934 (2009)
Modgil, S.: Revisiting abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8306, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_1
Modgil, S.: Towards a general framework for dialogues that accommodate reasoning about preferences. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10757, pp. 175–191. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_13
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the COMMA 2010, pp. 347–358 (2010)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)
Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: A generalization of dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 54–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_4
Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 276–284. IOS Press (2008)
Prakken, H.: Historical overview of formal argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 75–144. College Publications, London (2018)
Sakuntala, N.: Sati, Widow Burning in India. Viking, Doubleday, New Delhi (1992)
deontic logic: proof theory and applications. In: De Nivelle, H. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9323, pp. 323–338. Springer, Cham (2015). 
Theory of Vedic Injunctions. History and Philosophy of Logic (2019, forthcoming)Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
van Berkel, K., Ciabattoni, A., Freschi, E., Modgil, S. (2019). Evaluating Networks of Arguments: A Case Study in Mīmāṃsā Dialectics. In: Blackburn, P., Lorini, E., Guo, M. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11813. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-60291-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-60292-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)