A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
Artificial Intelligence
A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
Artificial Intelligence
Practical first-order argumentation
AAAI'05 Proceedings of the 20th national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
On the meta-logic of arguments
ArgMAS'05 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Some thoughts on using argumentation to handle trust
CLIMA'11 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Computational logic in multi-agent systems
Some reflections on two current trends in formal argumentation
Logic Programs, Norms and Action
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Formal approaches to modelling argumentation provide ways to present arguments and counterarguments, and to evaluate which arguments are, in a formal sense, warranted. While these proposals allow for evaluating object-level arguments and counterarguments, they do not give sufficient consideration to evaluating the proponents of the arguments. Yet in everyday life we consider both the contents of an argument and its proponent. So if we do not trust a proponent, we may choose to not trust their arguments. Or if we are faced with an argument that we do not have the expertise to assess (for example when deciding whether to agree to having a particular surgical operation), we tend to agree to an argument by someone who is an expert. In general, we see that for each argument, we need to determine the appropriateness of the proponent for it. So for an argument about our health, our doctor is normally an appropriate proponent, but for an argument about our investments, our doctor is normally not an appropriate proponent. In this way, a celebrity is rarely an appropriate proponent for an argument, and a liar is not necessarily an inappropriate proponent for an argument. In this paper, we provide a logic-based framework for evaluating arguments in terms of the appropriateness of the proponents.