The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation

Ulrike Hahn1, Mike Oaksford2
1Cardiff University
2School of Psychology , Birkbeck College London, London, UK

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Copi I. M., Cohen C. (1990). Introduction to Logic (8th edition). New York: Macmillan Press

Eeemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discourse. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter

Eeemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Eeemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002). Strategic Manouvering with the Burden of Proof. in van Eemeren, F. H. (ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press, pp. 13–28

Eeemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2003). A Pragmatic View of the Burden of Proof. In van Eemeren F. H., Snoek Henkemans A. F., Blair J. A., Willard C. A. (eds.). Anyone Who Has a View. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 123–132

Gaskens R. H. (1992) Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse. New Haven: Yale University Press

Govier T. (1992). A Practical Study of Argument, 3rd edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Govier, T.: 1997, ‹Arguing Forever? Or Two Tiers of Argument Appraisal’, in H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale and A. V. Colman (eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric: Proceedings of the second OSSA conference. OSSA, St Catherine’s, Ontario

Hahn U., Oaksford M. (2006). A Bayesian Approach to Informal Reasoning Fallacies. Synthese, 152:207–223

Hahn, U. and M. Oaksford: (in press), ‹The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A␣Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies’, Psychological Review.

Hamblin C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen

Kahane H. (1992). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Kauffeld, F. J.: 1995, ‹The Persuasive Force of Argumentation on Behalf of Proposals’, Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol II: Analysis and Evaluation, pp. 79–90, Amsterdam.

Kauffeld F. J. (1998). Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation, 12:245–266

Kauffeld, F. J.: 2002, ‹Pivotal Issues and Norms in Rhetorical Theories of Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, pp. 97–118, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht.

Kauffeld F. J. (2003). The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden Of Proof. in Eemeren F. H. v., Blair J. A., Willard C. A., Snoeck Henkemans A. F. (eds.) Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 133–146

Kokott, J.: 1998. The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law: Civil and Common Law. Kluwer International Law.

Korb K. (2004). Bayesian Informal Logic and Fallacy. Informal Logic, 24:41–70

Johnson R. H. (2000) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Lumer C. (1997). Practical Arguments for Theoretical Theses. Argumentation, 11:329–340

Michalos A. C. (1969). Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Munson R. (1976). The Way of Words. Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin

Oaksford M., Hahn U. (2004). A Bayesian Approach to the Argument from Ignorance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58:121–131

Prakken, H., C. Reed and D. Walton: 2005, ‹Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceeding of the Tenth Internal Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Bologna, Italy, June, pp. 115–124, Association for Computing Machinery, New York.

Pratt J. W., Raiffa H., Schlaifer, R. (1995) Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press

Raikka, J.: 1997, Burden of Proof rules in Social Criticism. Argumentation. 11, 463–477

Rebmann, K., F. J. Säcker and R. Rixecker (Hrsg.): 1986, Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. CH Beck, Munich.

Rescher N. (1977) Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press

Toulmin, S.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, (revised edition 2003). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Ullman-Margalit E. (1983). On Presumption. The Journal of Philosophy, 80:143–163

Walton D. N. (1988). Burden of Proof. Argumentation, 2:233–254

Walton D. N. (1992). Nonfallacious Arguments from Ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 29:381–387

Walton D. N. (1996) Arguments from Ignorance. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press

Walton D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Walton D. (2003). Is there a Burden of Questioning? Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11:1–43

Walton D. (2005). Pragmatic and Idealized Models of Knowledge and Ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 42:59–69

Whately, R.: 1827/1963, Elements of Rhetoric. D. Ehninger (ed.). Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale IL.

Woods, J., A. Irvine and D. N. Walton: 2004, Argument: Critical thinking, logic and the fallacies, Revised Edition. Prentice Hall, Toronto.

Zuckerman A. A. S. (1989). The Principles of Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press