Abstract
This study is an approach to encompass uncertainty in the well-known Argumentation Scheme from Negative Consequences and in the more recent “Basic Slippery Slope Argument” proposed by Douglas Walton. This work envisages two new kinds of uncertainty that should be taken into account, one related to time and one related to the material relation between premises and conclusion. Furthermore, it is argued that some modifications to the structure of these Argumentation Schemes or to their Critical Questions could facilitate the process of Knowledge Extraction and modeling from these two argumentative patterns. For example, the study suggests to change the premises of the Basic Slippery Slope related to the Control and the Loss of Control.
This work was partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the MSCA grant agreement No 690974 ‘MIREL: MIning and REasoning with Legal texts’.
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.
Also Baroni et al. [1] noticed a similar issue and suggested a different formulation for the Argumentation Schemes analyzed in their work and for the related Critical Questions.
References
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B., van der Torre, L.: Encompassing uncertainty in argumentation schemes. Front. Connect. Argum. Theory Nat. Lang. Process. 2014 (2014)
Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Reed, C.: On logical specifications of the argument interchange format. J. Log. Comput. 23(5), 951–989 (2013)
Freeman, J.B.: Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure, vol. 10. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2011)
Gabbay, D.M., Giacomin, M., Liao, B., van der Torre, L.: Present and future of formal argumentation. Dagstuhl Reports (2016)
Lode, E.: Slippery slope arguments and legal reasoning. Calif. Law Rev. 87, 1469 (1999)
Macagno, F., Walton, D., Reed, C.: Argumentation schemes. History, classifications, and computational applications. J. Log. Appl. 4(8), 2493–2556 (2017)
Palmirani, M.: A tool to highlight weaknesses and strengthen cases: CISpaces.org. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2018: The Thirty-first Annual Conference, vol. 313, p. 186. IOS Press (2018)
Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artif. Intell. Law 11(2), 167–195 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36
Walton, D.: The basic slippery slope argument. Informal Log. 35(3), 273–311 (2015)
Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)
Walton, D.N., Kuhse, H.: Slippery Slope Arguments. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1992)
Acknowledgements
Davide Liga acknowledges Beishui Liao and Yì N. Wáng for their valuable guidance and support at Zhejiang University, and professor Leendert Van der Torre for his valuable suggestions and advice. We also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their important suggestions and observations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Liga, D., Palmirani, M. (2020). Uncertainty in Argumentation Schemes: Negative Consequences and Basic Slippery Slope. In: Dastani, M., Dong, H., van der Torre, L. (eds) Logic and Argumentation. CLAR 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12061. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44638-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44638-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44637-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44638-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)