Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution

Переведенное название: Альтернативность истины и разрешимость спора

Результат исследований: Материалы конференцийтезисы

Выдержка

In my talk I propose a three-component evaluation of arguments as an essential part of an algorithm for the argumentative dispute resolution. The idea of the algorithm stems out of Dung-style abstract argumentation approach [1] and its further developments towards creating formalisms with structured arguments, as outlined by H.Prakken and G.Vreeswijk [2]. Core obstacle for creating a formalism with structured arguments in the vein of Dung-style frameworks is the incompatibility of defeasible and indefeasible rules for arguments’ aggregation in the argumentative framework, which leads to the collapse in the formalisms, as the rationality postulates by L.Amgoud and M. Caminada demonstrate [3]. Since it is the idea of the non-monotonic arguments’ reinstating for the sake of modelling diversity of opinions in the dispute which underlies the need of merging defeasible and indefeasible rules, I propose using non-standard ordering of the truth values for modelling such diversity. The idea of the non-standard ordering of the truth-values is borrowed from the many-valued logic of Dmitry Bochvar [4] and Victor Finn [4]. It suggests that the orderings of the truth-values may vary so as to express alternating truth in justified, rebutted or indeterminate arguments, as it often happens, for instance, in legal disputes where which of the versions presented in the courtroom is true the jury will find out in the end and not at the moment of its presentation
Язык оригиналаанглийский
Страницы38-39
Число страниц2
СостояниеОпубликовано - 2018
Событие6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France), - Vichy, Франция
Продолжительность: 16 июн 201826 июн 2018
https://www.uni-log.org/start6.html

Конференция

Конференция6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France),
Сокращенный заголовокUNILOG 2018
СтранаФранция
ГородVichy
Период16/06/1826/06/18
Адрес в сети Интернет

Предметные области Scopus

  • Философия

Ключевые слова

  • истина
  • разрешимость
  • спор
  • аргументация
  • семантика
  • модифицируемые рассуждения

Цитировать

Лисанюк, Е. Н. (2018). Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution. 38-39. Выдержка из 6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France), Vichy, Франция.
Лисанюк, Елена Николаевна. / Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution. Выдержка из 6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France), Vichy, Франция.2 стр.
@conference{187053d128a34024a6fb6c4fb2909bf8,
title = "Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution",
abstract = "In my talk I propose a three-component evaluation of arguments as an essential part of an algorithm for the argumentative dispute resolution. The idea of the algorithm stems out of Dung-style abstract argumentation approach [1] and its further developments towards creating formalisms with structured arguments, as outlined by H.Prakken and G.Vreeswijk [2]. Core obstacle for creating a formalism with structured arguments in the vein of Dung-style frameworks is the incompatibility of defeasible and indefeasible rules for arguments’ aggregation in the argumentative framework, which leads to the collapse in the formalisms, as the rationality postulates by L.Amgoud and M. Caminada demonstrate [3]. Since it is the idea of the non-monotonic arguments’ reinstating for the sake of modelling diversity of opinions in the dispute which underlies the need of merging defeasible and indefeasible rules, I propose using non-standard ordering of the truth values for modelling such diversity. The idea of the non-standard ordering of the truth-values is borrowed from the many-valued logic of Dmitry Bochvar [4] and Victor Finn [4]. It suggests that the orderings of the truth-values may vary so as to express alternating truth in justified, rebutted or indeterminate arguments, as it often happens, for instance, in legal disputes where which of the versions presented in the courtroom is true the jury will find out in the end and not at the moment of its presentation",
keywords = "истина, разрешимость, спор, аргументация, семантика, модифицируемые рассуждения",
author = "Лисанюк, {Елена Николаевна}",
note = "Beziau J-Y et al ed. Handbook of the 6th World Congress and School of Universal Logic. Vichy, 2018. P.38-39; null ; Conference date: 16-06-2018 Through 26-06-2018",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
pages = "38--39",
url = "https://www.uni-log.org/start6.html",

}

Лисанюк, ЕН 2018, 'Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution' 6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France), Vichy, Франция, 16/06/18 - 26/06/18, стр. 38-39.

Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution. / Лисанюк, Елена Николаевна.

2018. 38-39 Выдержка из 6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France), Vichy, Франция.

Результат исследований: Материалы конференцийтезисы

TY - CONF

T1 - Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution

AU - Лисанюк, Елена Николаевна

N1 - Beziau J-Y et al ed. Handbook of the 6th World Congress and School of Universal Logic. Vichy, 2018. P.38-39

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In my talk I propose a three-component evaluation of arguments as an essential part of an algorithm for the argumentative dispute resolution. The idea of the algorithm stems out of Dung-style abstract argumentation approach [1] and its further developments towards creating formalisms with structured arguments, as outlined by H.Prakken and G.Vreeswijk [2]. Core obstacle for creating a formalism with structured arguments in the vein of Dung-style frameworks is the incompatibility of defeasible and indefeasible rules for arguments’ aggregation in the argumentative framework, which leads to the collapse in the formalisms, as the rationality postulates by L.Amgoud and M. Caminada demonstrate [3]. Since it is the idea of the non-monotonic arguments’ reinstating for the sake of modelling diversity of opinions in the dispute which underlies the need of merging defeasible and indefeasible rules, I propose using non-standard ordering of the truth values for modelling such diversity. The idea of the non-standard ordering of the truth-values is borrowed from the many-valued logic of Dmitry Bochvar [4] and Victor Finn [4]. It suggests that the orderings of the truth-values may vary so as to express alternating truth in justified, rebutted or indeterminate arguments, as it often happens, for instance, in legal disputes where which of the versions presented in the courtroom is true the jury will find out in the end and not at the moment of its presentation

AB - In my talk I propose a three-component evaluation of arguments as an essential part of an algorithm for the argumentative dispute resolution. The idea of the algorithm stems out of Dung-style abstract argumentation approach [1] and its further developments towards creating formalisms with structured arguments, as outlined by H.Prakken and G.Vreeswijk [2]. Core obstacle for creating a formalism with structured arguments in the vein of Dung-style frameworks is the incompatibility of defeasible and indefeasible rules for arguments’ aggregation in the argumentative framework, which leads to the collapse in the formalisms, as the rationality postulates by L.Amgoud and M. Caminada demonstrate [3]. Since it is the idea of the non-monotonic arguments’ reinstating for the sake of modelling diversity of opinions in the dispute which underlies the need of merging defeasible and indefeasible rules, I propose using non-standard ordering of the truth values for modelling such diversity. The idea of the non-standard ordering of the truth-values is borrowed from the many-valued logic of Dmitry Bochvar [4] and Victor Finn [4]. It suggests that the orderings of the truth-values may vary so as to express alternating truth in justified, rebutted or indeterminate arguments, as it often happens, for instance, in legal disputes where which of the versions presented in the courtroom is true the jury will find out in the end and not at the moment of its presentation

KW - истина

KW - разрешимость

KW - спор

KW - аргументация

KW - семантика

KW - модифицируемые рассуждения

M3 - Abstract

SP - 38

EP - 39

ER -

Лисанюк ЕН. Alternating truth in argumentative dispute resolution. 2018. Выдержка из 6th World Congress and School on Universal Logic (June 16-26, 2018, Vichy, France), Vichy, Франция.