Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation

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

Abstract

We articulate a dialectical argumentation framework for qualitative representation of epistemic uncertainty in scientific domains. The framework is grounded in specific philosophies of science and theories of rational mutual discourse. We study the formal properties of our framework and provide it with a game theoretic semantics. With this semantics, we examine the relationship between the snaphots of the debate in the framework and the long run position of the debate, and prove a result directly analogous to the standard (Neyman–Pearson) approach to statistical hypothesis testing. We believe this formalism for representating uncertainty has value in domains with only limited knowledge, where experimental evidence is ambiguous or conflicting, or where agreement between different stakeholders on the quantification of uncertainty is difficult to achieve. All three of these conditions are found in assessments of carcinogenic risk for new chemicals.

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. S. Abramsky and R. Jagadeesan, Games and full completeness for multiplicative linear logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(2) (1994) 543-574.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Abramsky and G. McCusker, Game semantics, in: Logic and Computation: Proceedings of the 1997 Marktoberdorf Summer School, eds. H. Schwichtenberg and U. Berger (Springer, Berlin, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Alexy, A theory of practical discourse, in: The Communicative Ethics Controversy, eds. S. Benhabib and F. Dallmayr, Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990) pp. 151-190. Translation by D. Frisby of: Eine Theorie des praktischen Diskurses, in: Normenbegrundung-Normendurchsetzung, ed. W. Oelmuller (Schoningh, Paderborn, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  4. L. Amgoud, N. Maudet and S. Parsons, Modelling dialogues using argumentation, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-2000), ed. E. Durfee (IEEE, Boston, MA, 2000) pp. 31-38.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Amgoud, S. Parsons and N. Maudet, Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), ed. W. Horn (IOS Press, 2000) pp. 338-342.

  6. Anon, Editorial: Health risks of genetically modified foods, The Lancet 353(9167) (29 May 1999).

  7. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, F.P. Coenen and P.Orton, Argument-based explanation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program, Computers, Law and AI 2(1) (1993) 53-66.

    Google Scholar 

  8. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, J. Freeman, H. Hohmann and H. Prakken, Computational models, argumentation theories and legal practice, in: Bonskeid Symposium on Argument and Computation, eds. C. Reed and T. Norman, 2001 (in press).

  9. J.L. Borges, The Library of Babel, in: Collected Fictions (Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, UK, 1998) pp. 112-118.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D.V. Carbogim, D.S. Robertson and J.R. Lee, Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering, The Knowledge Engineering Review 15(2) (2000) 119-149.

    Google Scholar 

  11. L. Carlson, Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. Carroll, What the tortoise said to Achilles, Mind 4(14) (n.s.) (1895) 278-280.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C.I. Chesnevar, A.G. Maguitman and R.P. Loui, Logical models of argument, ACM Computing Surveys (2000).

  14. D.R. Cox and D.V. Hinkley, Theoretical Statistics (Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. Dzeroski, H. Blockeel, B. Kompare, S. Kramer, B. Pfahringer and W. Van Laer, Experiments in predicting biodegradability, in: Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-99), eds. S. Dzeroski and P. Flach (Springer, Berlin, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Ehrenfeucht, An application of games to the completeness problem for formalized theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae 49 (1961) 129-141.

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. Feyerabend, Against Method (Verso, London, 3rd edition, 1993). First edition published 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  18. FIPA, Specification part 2-agent communication language, Technical report, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 23 October 1997.

  19. J. Fox and S. Parsons, Arguing about beliefs and actions, in: Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, eds. A. Hunter and S. Parsons, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1455 (Springer, Berlin, 1998) pp. 266-302.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Fraïssé, Sur les classifications des systems de relations, Publications Scientifiques de I'Universite d'Alger 1(1) (1954).

  21. J.B. Freeman, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure (Foris, Berlin, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Girle, D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney and B. Verheij, Practical reasoning: an argument and computation perspective, in: Bonskeid Symposium on Argument and Computation, eds. C. Reed and T. Norman, 2001 (in press).

  23. J. Glanz, Elusive tau neutrino detected by Fermilab, International Herald Tribune 22-23 (July 2000).

  24. G. Goodman and R. Wilson, Quantitative prediction of human cancer risk from rodent carcinogenic potencies: a closer look at the epidemiological evidence for some chemicals not definitively carcinogenic to humans, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 14 (1991) 118-146.

    Google Scholar 

  25. T.F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game: An exercise in computational dialectics, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (1994) 239-292.

    Google Scholar 

  26. T.F. Gordon and N. Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law (ACM Press, New York, 1997) pp. 10-18.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J.D. Graham, L.C. Green and M.J. Roberts, In Search of Safety: Chemicals and Cancer Risk (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  28. J.D. Graham and L. Rhomberg, How risks are identified and assessed, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545 (1996) 15-24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. G.M. Gray, P. Li, I. Shlyakhter and R. Wilson, An empirical investigation of factors influencing prediction of carcinogenic hazard across species, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 22 (1995) 283-291.

    Google Scholar 

  30. H.P. Grice, Logic and conversation, in: Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Academic Press, New York, 1975) pp. 41-58.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Heinemann, London, UK, 1984). Translation by T. McCarthy of: Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Band I, Hand-lungsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991). Translation by C. Lenhardt and S.W. Nicholsen of: Moralbewusstsein un kommunikatives Handeln (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  33. C.L. Hamblin, Fallacies (Methuen and Co Ltd, London, UK, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  34. C.L. Hamblin, Mathematical models of dialogue, Theoria 37 (1971) 130-155.

    Google Scholar 

  35. S.O. Hansson, What is philosophy of risk? Theoria 62(1-2) (1996) 169-186.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R. Hilpinen, On C. S. Peirce' theory of the proposition, in: The Relevance of Charles Peirce, ed. E. Freeman (The Hegeler Institute, La Salle, IL, 1983) pp. 264-270.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Hintikka and G. Sandu, Game-theoretical semantics, in: Handbook of Logic and Language, eds. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997) pp. 361-410.

    Google Scholar 

  38. D. Hitchcock, Some principles of rational mutual inquiry, in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, eds. F. van Eemeren et al., SIC-SAT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1991) pp. 236-243.

    Google Scholar 

  39. D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney and S. Parsons, A framework for deliberation dialogues, in: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), eds. H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale, J.A. Blair and R.H. Johnson, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  40. W. Hodges, A Shorter Model Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Hulstijn, Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction, PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  42. D. Jamieson, Scientific uncertainty and the political process, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545 (1996) 35-43.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gørannson and J. Fox, A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty, Computational Intelligence 11(1) (1995) 113-131.

    Google Scholar 

  44. P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson and M. Patel, Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need, in: Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, eds. A. Hunter and S. Parsons, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1455 (Springer, Berlin, 1998) pp. 138-156.

    Google Scholar 

  45. I. Lakatos and P. Feyerabend, For and Against Method, ed. M. Motterlini (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  46. A.R. Lomuscio, M. Wooldridge and N.R. Jennings, A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce, in: Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce: The European AgentLink Perspective, eds. F. Dignum and C. Sierra, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1991 (Springer, Berlin, 2001) pp. 19-33.

    Google Scholar 

  47. P. Lorenzen, Ein dialogisches konstruktivitatskriterium, in: Infinitistic Methods: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Mathematics, Warsaw, 2-9 September 1959 (PWN, Warszawa, Poland, 1961) pp. 193-200. Reprinted in [48].

    Google Scholar 

  48. P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz, Dialogische Logik (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, Germany, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  49. J.D. MacKenzie, How to stop talking to tortoises, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20(4) (1979) 705-717.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J.D. MacKenzie, Question-begging in non-cumulative systems, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979) 117-133.

    Google Scholar 

  51. J.D. MacKenzie, Four dialogue systems, Studia Logica 49(4) (1990) 567-583.

    Google Scholar 

  52. D.G. Mayo, Toward a more objective understanding of the evidence of carcinogenic risk, in: Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association Conference, Vol. 2, eds. A. Fine and J. Leplin (Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, 1998) pp. 489-503.

    Google Scholar 

  53. P. McBurney and S. Parsons, Truth or consequences: using argumentation to reason about risk, in: Symposium on Practical Reasoning, British Psychological Society Conference, British Psychological Society, London, UK (December 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  54. P. McBurney and S. Parsons, Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000), eds. C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 2000) pp. 371-379.

    Google Scholar 

  55. P. McBurney and S. Parsons, Tenacious tortoises: a formalism for argument over rules of inference, in: Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), ed. G. Vreeswijk, ECAI, Berlin, Germany (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  56. P. McBurney and S. Parsons, Intelligent systems to support deliberative democracy in environmental regulation, Information and Communications Technology Law 10(1) (2001) 33-43.

    Google Scholar 

  57. P. Mittelstaedt, Quantum Logic (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  58. N. Murray, B. Heap, W. Hill, J. Smith, M. Waterfield and R. Bowden, Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes, Report 11/99, The Royal Society, London, UK (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  59. A. Naess, Communication and Argument: Elements of Applied Semantics (Allen and Unwin, London, UK, 1966). Translation of: En del Elementaere Logiske Emner (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway, 1947).

    Google Scholar 

  60. S. Parsons and S. Green, Argumentation and qualitative decision making, in: The 5th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU99), eds. A. Hunter and S. Parsons, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1638 (Springer, Berlin, 1999) pp. 328-339.

    Google Scholar 

  61. S. Parsons, C. Sierra and N.R. Jennings, Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing, Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3) (1998) 261-292.

    Google Scholar 

  62. M. Pera, The Discourses of Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  64. K.R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Enquiry (Hutchinson, London, UK, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  65. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game, AI and Law 6 (1998) 231-287.

    Google Scholar 

  66. H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk, Logics for defeasible argumentation, in: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, ed. D. Gabbay (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  67. C. Reed, Generating Arguments in Natural Language, PhD thesis, University College, University of London, London, UK (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  68. C. Reed and T. Norman, eds., Bonskeid Symposium on Argument and Computation (2001, in press).

  69. W. Rehg, Reason and rhetoric in Habermas' Theory of Argumentation, in: Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Our Time: A Reader, eds. W. Jost and M.J. Hyde (Yale University Press, New Haven, CN, 1997) pp. 358-377.

    Google Scholar 

  70. W. Rehg, P. McBurney and S. Parsons, Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: Philosophical issues in deployment and evaluation, in: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), eds. H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale, J.A. Blair and R.H. Johnson, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (2001).

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

    Google Scholar 

  72. M.E. Shere, The myth of meaningful environmental risk assessment, Harvard Environmental Law Review 19(2) (1995) 409-492.

    Google Scholar 

  73. A. Srinivasan, S.H. Muggleton, M.J.E. Sternberg and R.D. King, Theories of mutagenicity: a study in first-order and feature-based induction, Artificial Intelligence 85 (1995) 277-299.

    Google Scholar 

  74. K. Stathis, A game-based architecture for developing interactive components in computational logic, Electronic Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 2000(5) (March 2000).

  75. S.E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  76. U.S.A. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. U.S. Federal Register, 51:33991-34003 (24 September 1986).

  77. U.S.A. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. U.S. Federal Register, 61:17960-18011 (23 April 1996).

  78. B. Verheij, Automated argument assistance for lawyers, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oslo, Norway (ACM, New York, 1999) pp. 43-52.

    Google Scholar 

  79. D.N.Walton and E.C.W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Series in Logic and Language (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  80. H. Wohlrapp, A new light on non-deductive argumentation schemes, Argumentation 12 (1998) 341-350.

    Google Scholar 

  81. F.M. Wolf, Meta-analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  82. R. Zimmerman, When studies collide: Meta-analysis and rules of evidence for environmental health policy-Applications to Benzene, Dioxins, and Formaldehyde, Policy Studies Journal 23(1) (1995) 123-140.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZF, United Kingdom

    Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons

Authors
  1. Peter McBurney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McBurney, P., Parsons, S. Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32, 125–169 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016757315265

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016757315265

Search

Navigation