Advertisement

A Dialogue System for Evaluating Explanations

Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 23)

Abstract

This chapter presents a theory of explanation by building a dialectical system that has speech act rules that define the kinds of moves allowed, such as putting forward an argument, requesting an explanation and offering an explanation. Pre and post-condition rules for the speech acts determine when a particular speech act can be put forward as a move in the dialogue, and what type of move or moves must follow it. This chapter offers a dialogue structure with three stages, an opening stage, an explanation stage and a closing stage, and shows how an explanation dialogue can shift to other types of dialogue known in argumentation studies such as persuasion dialogue and deliberation dialogue. Such shifts can go from argumentation to explanation and back again. The problem of evaluating explanations is solved by extending the hybrid system of (Bex, Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011) which combines explanations and arguments to include a method of testing stories called examination dialogue. In this type of dialogue an explanation can be probed and tested by arguments. The result is a method of evaluating explanations.

Keywords

Plausible Reasoning Dialogue System Abductive Reasoning Commitment Store Closing Stage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aristotle. 1928. On sophistical refutations, Loeb classical library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, K., T.J.M. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. 2006. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2): 157–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. 2007. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. 2008. Asking the right question: Forcing commitment in examination dialogues. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, ed. P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, 49–60. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berland, L.K., and B.J. Reiser. 2008. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education 93(1): 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bex, F.J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bex, F.J., and D. Walton. 2012. Burdens and standards of proof for inference to the best explanation: Three case studies. Law, Probability and Risk 11(2–3): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bratman, M., D. Israel, and M. Pollack. 1988. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4(3): 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, S. 1996. Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109: 923–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cawsey, A. 1992. Explanation and interaction: The computer generation of explanatory dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Collingwood, R.G. 1946. The idea of history. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  13. Dray, W. 1964. Philosophy of history. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Dray, W. 1995. History as re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood’s idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dunne, P.E., S. Doutre, and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. 2005. Discovering Inconsistency through examination dialogues. In Proceedings IJCAI-05, 1560–1561. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  16. Finocchiaro, M. 1980. Scientific discoveries as growth of understanding: The case of Newton’s gravitation. In Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality, ed. Thomas Nickles, 235–255. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. 1974. Explanation and scientific understanding. The Journal of Philosophy LXXI: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2009. Proof burdens and standards. In Argumentation and artificial intelligence, ed. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari, 239–260. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1981. A history of Greek philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  21. Kass. A., and D. Leake. 1987. Types of explanations, Technical report ADA183253. U. S. Department of Commerce, Alexandria.Google Scholar
  22. Leake, D.B. 1992. Evaluating explanations: A content theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, J.D. 1995. Participating in explanatory dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Moulin, B., H. Irandoust, M. Belanger, and G. Desbordes. 2002. Explanation and argumentation capabilities. Artificial Intelligence Review 17(3): 169–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parsons, S., and N.R. Jennings. 1997. Negotiation through argumentation: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the second international conference on multi-agents systems, ed. Mario Tokoro, 267–274. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pera, M. 1994. The discoveries of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2): 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reed, C. 2006. Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(1): 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sandoval, W., and B.J. Reiser. 2004. Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education 88(1): 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schank, R.C. 1986. Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Schank, R.C., and C.K. Riesback. 1981. Inside computer understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Schank, R.C., A. Kass, and C.K. Riesbeck. 1994. Inside case-based explanation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Schlangen, D. 2004. Causes and strategies for requesting clarification in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 5th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, ed. Michael Strube and Candy Sidner, 136–143. East Stoudsburg: XXXX. Available at: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/hlt-naacl2004/sigdial04/pdf/schlangen.pdf.
  36. Scriven, M. 1972. The concept of comprehension: From semantics to software. In Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge, ed. J.B. Carroll and R.O. Freedle, 31–39. Washington: W. H. Winston & Sons.Google Scholar
  37. Scriven, M. 2002. The limits of explication. Argumentation 16(1): 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snoeck Henkemans, F. 1997. Analyzing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Google Scholar
  39. Trout, J.D. 2002. Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science 69(2): 212–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Unsworth, L. 2001. Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school texts. International Journal of Science Education 23(6): 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verheij, B. 2003. DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Wright, G.H. 1971. Explanation and understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Walton, D. 1989. Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Walton, D. 2003. The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 35(12): 1771–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walton, D. 2004. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  47. Walton, D. 2006. Character evidence: An abductive theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Walton, D. 2007a. Dialogical models of explanation. In Explanation-aware computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop, Technical report WS-07-06, 1–9. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walton, D. 2007b. Clarification dialogue. Studies in Communication Sciences 7: 165–197.Google Scholar
  50. Walton, D. 2011. Teleological argumentation to and from motives. Law, Probability and Risk 10(3): 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D., C.W. Tindale, and T.F. Gordon. 2014. Applying recent argumentation methods to some ancient examples of plausible reasoning. Argumentation 28(1): 85–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wells, S., and C. Reed. 2012. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic 10(4): 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wigmore, J.H. 1935. A student’s textbook of the law of evidence. Chicago: The Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR)University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations