Advertisement

Attribution of a Portrait to Leonardo da Vinci

Chapter
  • 1.7k Downloads
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 23)

Abstract

In this chapter a case study is conducted to test the capability of the Carneades Argumentation System (CAS) to model the argumentation in a case where forensic evidence was collected in an investigation triggered by a conflict among art experts on the attribution of a portrait to Leonardo da Vinci. A claim that a portrait of a young woman in a Renaissance dress could be attributed to Leonardo was initially dismissed by art experts. Forensic investigations were carried out, and evidence was collected by art history experts and scientific experts. The expert opinions were initially in conflict, but new evidence shifted the burden of proof onto the side of the skeptics. This chapter presents an analysis of the structure of the interlocking argumentation in the case using argument mapping tools to track the accumulation of evidence pro and con.

Keywords

Expert Opinion Argumentation Scheme Original Argument Ultimate Conclusion Abductive Reasoning 
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. Bench-Capon, T.J.M and G. Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2): 97–143.Google Scholar
  2. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. 2007. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckingham Shum, S.J., A. MacLean, V.M.E. Bellotti, and N.V. Hammond. 1997. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction 12(3): 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gordon, T.F. 2005. A computational model of argument for legal reasoning support systems. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL workshop series, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 53–64. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Gordon, T.F. 2010. The Carneades argumentation support system. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. C. Reed and C.W. Tindale. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, T.F. 2011. Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with Carneades. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, (ICAIL-2011: no editor given), 50–55. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grennan, W. 1997. Informal logic. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hamblin, C.L. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37(2): 130–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hastings, A.C. 1963. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  15. Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kemp, M., and P. Cotte. 2010. La Bella Principessa. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  17. Kienpointner, M. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  18. Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 2009. A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In Legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic, ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 223–253. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. Scheuer, O., F. Loll, N. Pinkwart, and B.M. McLaren. 2010. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1): 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tindale, C.W. 1990. Audiences and acceptable premises: Epistemic and logical conditions. In Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation, ed. F. van Eemeren et al., 288–295. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Google Scholar
  21. van Gijzel, B., and H. Prakken. 2011. Relating carneades with abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), 1113–1119, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  22. Walton, D. 2004. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  23. Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2005. Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL workshop series, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 103–111. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Walton, D., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Walton, D., and T.F. Gordon. 2011. Modeling Critical Questions as Additional Premises. In Argument cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International OSSA Conference, ed. F. Zenker, 1–13. Windsor, University of Windsor. Available at http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/11OSSA.pdf.
  26. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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