|
Argumentation Framework
In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, you represent an argumentation framework with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. Abstract argumentation frameworks Formal framework Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks ''à la Dung'', are defined formally as a pair: * A set of abstract elements called ''arguments'', denoted A * A binary relation on A, call ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence—perceiving, synthesizing, and inferring information—demonstrated by machines, as opposed to intelligence displayed by animals and humans. Example tasks in which this is done include speech recognition, computer vision, translation between (natural) languages, as well as other mappings of inputs. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' of Oxford University Press defines artificial intelligence as: the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages. AI applications include advanced web search engines (e.g., Google), recommendation systems (used by YouTube, Amazon and Netflix), understanding human speech (such as Siri and Alexa), self-driving cars (e.g., Tesla), automated decision-making and competing at the highest level in strategic game systems (such as chess and Go). ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Defeater
A defeater of a belief is evidence that this belief is false. Defeaters are of particular interest to epistemology since they affect whether a belief is justified. An important distinction is between undercutting and rebutting defeaters. Undercutting defeaters remove evidential support for a belief while rebutting defeaters provide evidential support for the opposite thesis of the belief. Defeaters play a central role in modern developments of defeasible reasoning. Types There are two types of defeaters: ''rebutting defeaters'' and ''undercutting defeaters''. Rebutting Evidence for the opposite thesis of a belief is called a rebutting defeater of this belief. For example, looking through the window and seeing that the sky is clear is evidence for the belief that it is not raining outside. Therefore, this perception is a rebutting defeater of the belief that it is raining. Undercutting Evidence that undermines the evidential support for a belief without giving support to t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Paraconsistent Logic
A paraconsistent logic is an attempt at a logical system to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing "inconsistency-tolerant" systems of logic which reject the principle of explosion. Inconsistency-tolerant logics have been discussed since at least 1910 (and arguably much earlier, for example in the writings of Aristotle); however, the term ''paraconsistent'' ("beside the consistent") was first coined in 1976, by the Peruvian philosopher Francisco Miró Quesada Cantuarias. The study of paraconsistent logic has been dubbed paraconsistency, which encompasses the school of dialetheism. Definition In classical logic (as well as intuitionistic logic and most other logics), contradictions entail everything. This feature, known as the principle of explosion or ''ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet'' (Latin, "from a contradiction, anything follows") can be expressed formal ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Knowledge Representation And Reasoning
Knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR, KR&R, KR²) is the field of artificial intelligence (AI) dedicated to representing information about the world in a form that a computer system can use to solve complex tasks such as Computer-aided diagnosis, diagnosing a medical condition or natural language user interface, having a dialog in a natural language. Knowledge representation incorporates findings from psychology about how humans solve problems and represent knowledge in order to design Formalism (mathematics), formalisms that will make complex systems easier to design and build. Knowledge representation and reasoning also incorporates findings from logic to automate various kinds of ''reasoning'', such as the application of rules or the relations of Set theory, sets and subsets. Examples of knowledge representation formalisms include Semantic network, semantic nets, systems architecture, Frame (artificial intelligence), frames, rules, and Ontology (information science), ont ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic Of Argumentation
The logic of argumentation (LA) is a formalised description of the ways in which humans reason and argue about propositions. It is used, for example, in computer artificial intelligence systems in the fields of medical diagnosis and prognosis, and research chemistry. Origin of term Krause et al. appear to have been the first authors to use the term "logic of argumentation" in a paper about their model for using argumentation for qualitative reasoning under uncertainty, although the approach had been used earlier in prototype computer applications to support medical diagnosis. Their ideas have been developed further, and used in applications for predicting chemical toxicity and xenobiotic metabolism, for example.William G. Button, Philip N. Judson, Anthony Long, and Jonathan D. Vessey. Using Absolute and Relative Reasoning in the Prediction of the Potential Metabolism of Xenobiotics, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1371-1377. Implementations In LA, arguments for and argu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic And Dialectic
Formal scientists have attempted to combine logic and dialectic through formalisation. These attempts include pre-formal and partially formal treatises on argument and dialectic, systems based on defeasible reasoning, and systems based on game semantics and dialogical logic. History Since the late 20th century, European and American logicians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for dialectic through formalisation, although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times. There have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (''The Uses of Argument'', 1958), Nicholas Rescher (''Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge'', 1977), and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst ( pragma-dialectics, 1980s). One can include works of the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic. Defeasibility Building on theories of defeasible reasoning (see John L. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dialogical Logic
Dialogical logic (also known as the logic of dialogues) was conceived as a pragmatic approach to the semantics of logic that resorts to concepts of game theory such as "winning a play" and that of "winning strategy". Since dialogical logic was the first approach to the semantics of logic using notions stemming from game theory, game theoretical semantics (GTS) and dialogical logic are often conflated under the term ''game semantics''. However, as discussed below, though GTS and dialogical logic are both rooted in a game-theoretical perspective, in fact, they have quite different philosophical and logical background. Nowadays it has been extended to a general framework for the study of meaning, knowledge, and inference constituted during interaction. The new developments include cooperative dialogues and dialogues deploying a fully interpreted language (''dialogues with content''). Origins and further developments The philosopher and mathematician Paul Lorenzen ( Erlangen-Nürnb ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argumentation Theory
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory, includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts by the ju ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called conclusion. Arguments can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. In logic, an argument is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language, and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science. Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments can be valid, and the valid ones can be sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premises is false ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument Map
An argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map typically includes the key components of the argument, traditionally called the '' conclusion'' and the ''premises'', also called ''contention'' and ''reasons''. Argument maps can also show co-premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, and lemmas. There are different styles of argument map but they are often functionally equivalent and represent an argument's individual claims and the relationships between them. Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and applying critical thinking. The purpose of mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked problems. An argument map is not to be confused with a concept map or ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Leaf Node
In computer science, a tree is a widely used abstract data type that represents a hierarchical tree structure with a set of connected nodes. Each node in the tree can be connected to many children (depending on the type of tree), but must be connected to exactly one parent, except for the ''root'' node, which has no parent. These constraints mean there are no cycles or "loops" (no node can be its own ancestor), and also that each child can be treated like the root node of its own subtree, making recursion a useful technique for tree traversal. In contrast to linear data structures, many trees cannot be represented by relationships between neighboring nodes in a single straight line. Binary trees are a commonly used type, which constrain the number of children for each parent to exactly two. When the order of the children is specified, this data structure corresponds to an ordered tree in graph theory. A value or pointer to other data may be associated with every node in the tree ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Argument")
.svg "Click for more on -> Leaf Node")