Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the epistemological relevance of Dung-style argumentation theories

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a seminal paper Phan Minh Dung (Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357, 1995) developed the theory of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), which has remained a pivotal point of reference for research in AI and argumentation ever since. This paper assesses the merits of Dung’s theory from an epistemological point of view. It argues that, despite its prominence in AI, the theory of AFs is epistemologically flawed. More specifically, abstract AFs don’t provide a normatively adequate model for the evaluation of rational, multi-proponent controversy. Different interpretations of Dung’s theory may be distinguished. Dung’s intended interpretation collides with basic principles of rational judgement suspension. The currently prevailing knowledge base interpretation ignores relevant arguments when assessing proponent positions in a debate. It is finally suggested that abstract AFs be better understood as a paraconsistent logic, rather than a theory of real argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alchourron, C.E., Peter, G., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change - partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbo. Log. 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) Scalable Uncertainty Management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 42–55. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010)

  3. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1–3), 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Autom. Reason. 29(2), 125–169 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Cartwright, D., Wyner, A.: Semantic models for policy deliberations. In: Ashley, K.D., Van Engers, T.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), pp 81–90. ACM, New York (2011)

  6. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 25–44. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)

  7. Bench-Capon, T.: Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Inf. Log. 22(2), 231–245 (2003)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: Abstract argumentation and values. In: Rahwan, I, Simari, G (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 45–64. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)

  9. Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Betz, G.: Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs. Synthese Library. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Betz, G., Cacean, S.: Ethical Aspects of Climate Engineering. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Betz, G., Cacean, S.: The Moral Controversy About Climate Engineering - An Argument Map, Version 2012-02-13. KIT, Karlsruhe (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(1–2), 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Brewka, G., Gordon, T.F.: Carneades and abstract dialectical frameworks: A reconstruction. Comput. Models Argument: Proc. Comma 2010(216), 3–12 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectic frameworks. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Proceeding of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp 102–111. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California (2010)

  17. Brewka, G., Dunne, P.E., Woltran, S.: Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks and standard afs. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI’11 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp 780–785. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California (2011)

  18. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. 8th European Conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005. Proceedings, pp 378–389. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg (2005)

  20. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 65–84. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)

  21. Carlos, I.C., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171 (10–15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. De ArgumentenFabriek: Argument map shale gas production in EU member states. Technical report, De ArgumentenFabriek, 2012. http://www.argumentenfabriek.nl/argument-map-shale-gas-production-eu-member-states http://www.argumentenfabriek.nl/argument-map-shale-gas-production-eu-member-states

  24. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Engelhardt, H.T., Caplan, A.L.: Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Friedman, J.: Suspended judgment. Philos. Stud. 162(2), 165–181 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gijzel, B.V., Prakken, H.: Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument Comput. 3(1), 21–47 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux : Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics: Theory Change and Database Updating, vol. 11 of Applied Logic Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Hansson, S.O.: Logic of belief revision. In: Zalta, E.N (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2009 edition (2009)

  32. Horn, R.: Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? 7 Maps and Handbook. Macro VU, Bainbridge Island (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kitcher, P.: The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lumer, C.: The epistemological theory of argument - how and why? Inf. Log. 25 (3), 213–242 (2005)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Machamer, P., Pera, M., Baltas, A.: Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Pollock. J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 11(4), 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build A Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Prakken, H.: An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy. Stud. Log. 4(1), 65–86 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Artif. Intell. Law 20(1), 57–82 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Prakken, H., Horty, J.: An appreciation of John Pollock’s work on the computational study of argument. Argument Comput. 3(1), 1–19 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2nd edn. (2001)

  44. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 321–339. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)

  45. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13(1–2), 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Rescher, N.: The Coherency Theory of Truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rescher, N.: Dialectics. A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory Decis. 1(2), 179–217 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Rudwick, M.J.S.: The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge Among Gentlemanly Specialists. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1985)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Sather, T.: Pros and Cons: A Debater’s Handbook. Routledge, London, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Seselja, D., Stra βer, C.: Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates. Synthese 190(12), 2195–2217 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Simon, H.A.: Models of Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Spohn, W.: A brief comparison of Pollock’s defeasible reasoning and ranking functions. Synthese 131(1), 39–56 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Spohn, W.: The Laws of Belief : Ranking Theory and Its Philosophical Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Philosophy, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Gregor Betz

Authors
  1. Gregor Betz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregor Betz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Betz, G. Assessing the epistemological relevance of Dung-style argumentation theories. Ann Math Artif Intell 78, 303–321 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9484-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9484-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Search

Navigation