Taking the dialectical stance in reasoning with evidence and proof
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Author | Floris J Bex,Douglas N Walton |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712718813795 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Taking the dialectical stance
in reasoning with evidence
and proof
Floris J Bex
Department of Information & Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Douglas N Walton
CRRAR, University of Windsor, Canada
Abstract
We present a computational argumentation approach that models legal reasoning with evi-
dence and proof as dialectical rather than probabilistic. This hybrid approach of stories and
arguments models the process of proof in a way that is compatible with Allen and Pardo’s
theory of relative plausibility by adding arguments that can be used to show how evidence can
support or attack explanations. Using some legal cases as examples, we show how criteria for
assessing explanations connect arguments and evidence to story schemes. We show how this
hybrid dialectical approach avoids the main problem of the probabilistic approaches, namely
that they require precise numbers to be applied in order to decide legal cases. We provide an
alternative method that allows fact-finders to reason with evidence holistically and not in the
item-by-item fashion proposed by the probabilistic account.
Keywords
evidence-based explanations, combining arguments and explanations, hybrid theory, burdens
and standards of proof
For quite some time now, Professors Michael Pardo and Ron Allen have argued for the theory that
reasoning in trials is typically based on the comparative plausibility of competing evidence-based
explanations.
1
In their 2019 article, which this text comments on, Allen and Pardo reply to some
Corresponding author:
Floris J Bex, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 3584, Netherlands.
E-mail: f.j.bex@uu.nl
1. Between them they have many publications but the two central ones are Pardo and Allen (2008) and the article this comment is
replying to, Allen and Pardo (2019).
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2019, Vol. 23(1-2) 90–99
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1365712718813795
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
To continue reading
Request your trial