Article

Dialogues about the burden of proof

Authors:

Douglas WaltonAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

Pages 115 - 124

https://doi.org/10.1145/1165485.1165503

Published: 06 June 2005 Publication History

Abstract

This paper analyses the phenomenon of a shift of the burden of proof in legal persuasion dialogues. Some sample dialogues are analysed of types of situations where such a shift may occur, viz. reasoning with defeasible rules, reasoning with argumentation schemes and reasoning with mere presumptions. It is argued that whether a shift in the burden of proof occurs can itself become the subject of dispute and it is shown how a dialogue game protocol for persuasion can be extended to let it regulate persuasion dialogues about the burden of proof. It is also shown that dialogues about the burden of proof are often implicitly about the precise form of the rules used in an argument.

References

[1]

J. Barwise and L. Moss. Vicious Circles. Number 60 in CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996.]]

[2]

T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard, and P. H. Leng. A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8:233--254, 2000.]]

Digital Library

[3]

F. J. Bex and H. Prakken. Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference, pages 119--129, Amsterdam etc, 2004. IOS Press.]]

[4]

F. J. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. N. Walton. Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12:125--165, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[5]

T. F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.]]

Digital Library

[6]

K. Greenwood, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and McBurney. Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 22--31, New York, 2003. ACM Press.]]

Digital Library

[7]

R. E. Leenes. Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 109--118, New York, 2001. ACM Press.]]

Digital Library

[8]

A. R. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999.]]

[9]

R. P. Loui and J. Norman. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:159--189, 1995.]]

Digital Library

[10]

J. D. Mackenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:117--133, 1979.]]

[11]

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

Digital Library

[12]

H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA '2000), number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, pages 224--238, Berlin, 2000. Springer Verlag.]]

Digital Library

[13]

H. Prakken. Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 119--128, New York, 2001. ACM Press.]]

Digital Library

[14]

H. Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in two-person dialogue games for argumentation. Technical report, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 2005.]]

[15]

H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. N. Walton. Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In Proceedings of the ECAI-2004 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, pages 81--86, 2004.]]

[16]

G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, pages 119--157. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.]]

[17]

B. Verheij. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11:167--195, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[18]

G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90:225--279, 1997.]]

Digital Library

[19]

D. N. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.]]

[20]

D. N. Walton. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State Press, University Press, 1997.]]

[21]

D. N. Walton. Is there a burden of questioning? Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11:1--43, 2003.]]

Digital Library

[22]

D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.]]

Cited By

Sartor GAraszkiewicz MAtkinson KBex Fvan Engers TFrancesconi EPrakken HSileno GSchilder FWyner ABench-Capon T(2022)Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decadeArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-022-09326-730:4(521-557)Online publication date: 8-Aug-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09326-7
Yu SChen X(2022)How to justify a backing’s eligibility for a warrant: the justification of a legal interpretation in a hard caseArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-022-09311-031:2(239-268)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09311-0
Dennis LOren N(2022)Explaining BDI agent behaviour through dialogueAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-022-09556-836:2Online publication date: 1-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-022-09556-8
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation
Proof Pearl: a Formal Proof of Higman's Lemma in ACL2

Higman's lemma is an important result in infinitary combinatorics, which has been formalized in several theorem provers. In this paper we present a formalization and proof of Higman's Lemma in the ACL2 theorem prover. Our formalization is based on a ...
Proof-checking metamathematics (theorem-proving)

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

June 2005

270 pages

ISBN:1595930817

DOI:10.1145/1165485

Conference Chair:
Giovanni Sartor
CIRSFID - Universita di Bologna, Italy

Copyright © 2005 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

The International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law
CIRSFID

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 June 2005

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

ICAIL05

Sponsor:

ICAIL05: 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intellignece and Law

June 6 - 11, 2005

Bologna, Italy

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

42
Total Citations
View Citations
245
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)5
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Sartor GAraszkiewicz MAtkinson KBex Fvan Engers TFrancesconi EPrakken HSileno GSchilder FWyner ABench-Capon T(2022)Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decadeArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-022-09326-730:4(521-557)Online publication date: 8-Aug-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09326-7
Yu SChen X(2022)How to justify a backing’s eligibility for a warrant: the justification of a legal interpretation in a hard caseArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-022-09311-031:2(239-268)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09311-0
Dennis LOren N(2022)Explaining BDI agent behaviour through dialogueAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-022-09556-836:2Online publication date: 1-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-022-09556-8
Dennis LOren NDignum FLomuscio AEndriss UNowé A(2021)Explaining BDI Agent Behaviour through DialogueProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3463952.3464007(429-437)Online publication date: 3-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3463952.3464007
Calegari RRiveret RSartor GMaranhão JWyner A(2021)The burden of persuasion in structured argumentationProceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/3462757.3466078(180-184)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3462757.3466078
Calegari RSartor G(2021)Burdens of Persuasion and Standards of Proof in Structured ArgumentationLogic and Argumentation10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_3(40-59)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_3
Atkinson KBench-Capon TBex FGordon TPrakken HSartor GVerheij B(2020)In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and lawArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09272-2Online publication date: 16-Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09272-2
Kawasaki TMoriguchi STakahashi K(2019)Reasoning by a Bipolar Argumentation Framework for PROLEGNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-31605-1_10(115-130)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31605-1_10
Takahashi KYokohama S(2017)On a Formal Treatment of Deception in Argumentative DialoguesMulti-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_33(390-404)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_33
Tantisripreecha TSoonthornphisaj N(2016)LegalEX: An expert system for law firmIntelligent Decision Technologies10.3233/IDT-16025810:3(315-328)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2016
https://doi.org/10.3233/IDT-160258
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten