Thesis for the degree of Master of Science Relating proof standards and abstract argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
The basic idea of argumentation is to construct arguments in favour of and against a certain statement, selecting the acceptable arguments, and in the end determining which statements hold. To explain how arguments defend their position, they can be structured by their used knowledge and rules. Several approaches to structured argumentation have been developed and subsequently related through a single framework called ASPIC. Although the theoretical relations between these approaches have thus been clarified, there have been significant developments in structured argumentation that deviate from this approach. Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proof standards are defined globally. However, its relation with Dung’s seminal abstract approach to argumentation is still an open question. In this thesis the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into ASPIC. Since ASPIC is defined to generate Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks, this in effect translates Carneades graphs into abstract argumentation frameworks. For this translation, we prove a formal correspondence and show that certain rationality postulates hold. It is furthermore proven that Carneades always induces a unique Dung extension, which is the same in all of Dung’s semantics, allowing us to generalise Carneades to cycle-containing structures.
منابع مشابه
Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation
Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proo...
متن کاملRelating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation
Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards. An open question is its relation with Dung’s seminal abstract approach to argumentation. In this paper the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into ASPIC, another recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC is defined to generate Dungstyle abst...
متن کاملEvaluating the quality of master degree thesis of Educational Psychology graduates
The purpose of the present research was to evaluate and identify the quality and the weaknesses and strengths of different sections of master's degree thesis in educational psychology at Tehran universities. The research method was evaluation and the statistical population included all the master's degree theses in the field of educational psychology at Tehran universities during the 2013-2016 ...
متن کاملProposing Appropriate National Standards for Nursing and Midwifery Education Derived from International Standards: a Case Study, Master of Science in Nursing and Midwifery
Introduction: Applying foreign standards for accreditation of Master of Science in nursing and midwifery in Iran seems anomalous. Taking advantage of these foreign standards as well as the views of experts in nursing and midwifery, the researcher in this study tried to develop the accreditation standards according to educational circumstances in Iran. Methods: This study was performed in the y...
متن کاملOn modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation
A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is...
متن کامل