The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof

By Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Douglas Walton. Artificial Intelligence, 2007

465 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd331b010bd2bf6f190adb61f7902326e77e05eb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Sanjay Modgil
2. Henry Prakken
3. Paul E. S. Dunne
4. John Lawrence
5. Chris Reed
6. Gerhard Brewka
7. Stefan Woltran
8. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Sanjay Modgil
2. John Lawrence
3. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon
4. Paul E. S. Dunne
5. Chris Reed
6. Gerhard Brewka
7. Stefan Woltran
8. Henry Prakken

Citations in the corpus

• A general account of argumentation with preferences (2013, methodology): “[47] subsequently showed that the Carneades system [25] is an instance of ASPIC+ with no defeat cycles.”
• Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (2010, methodology): “Also, following the Carneades terminology (Gordon, Prakken, and Walton 2007) we call the nodes in our graphs statements (or positions) rather than arguments.”
• Argument Mining: A Survey (2020, methodology): “The majority of these tools, such as Araucaria (Reed and Rowe 2004), Rationale (van Gelder 2007), OVA (Bex et al. 2013), and Carneades (Gordon, Prakken, and Walton 2007), require the analyst to manually identify the propositions involved in the argument being made and then connect them identifying t”
• Speech Acts and Burden of Proof in Computational Models of Deliberation Dialogue (2016, unknown): “  However,   there   is   an   issue   about  whether  making  a  proposal  in  a  deliberation  dialogue  carries  with   it   a   burden   of   proof   (Gordon   et   al.,   2007),   which   suggests   that   the   obligation   on   the   hearer   to   support   P   may   not   be   realistic  …”
• Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction (2015, unknown): “The Carneades Argumentation System (CAS) (Gordon, 2010) 1 was named after the Greek philosopher who advocated a fallibilistic epistemology (Thorsrud, 2002).”
• The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial (2014, methodology): “…to satisfy several additional rationality postulates proposed by Caminada et al. (2012). van Gijzel and Prakken (2012) have reconstructed the Carneades system of Gordon et al. (2007) in ASPIC+. Bex et al. (2013) have used ASPIC+ to give a logical account of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF).”
• Argumentation in artificial intelligence (2007, methodology): “[97], emphasise the procedural nature of justification using a generalised argument scheme while Atkinson and Bench-Capon [19] offer a detailed exploration of a particular argument scheme and its critical questions.”