SpringerLink
Log in

Aristotelian Dialectic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essays on Argumentation in Antiquity

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 39))

  • 302 Accesses

Abstract

It is shown that Aristotelian dialectic can be analyzed as having two parts: a core formal model that has a formal dialogue structure and a set of ten definable supplementary characteristics that lie outside the core structure. Some current argumentation tools used in artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems are applied to the task of extending the core formal model to include the supplementary characteristics. Using these tools it is explained how the structure of a dialogue can be mapped into an argument diagram that can be analyzed and evaluated using standard argumentation techniques such as argumentation schemes, types of dialogue, critical questions and a dialectical concept of burden of proof. Disputed issues on how the elenchus fits the standard dialogue typology are discussed, and it is concluded that it fits best into a type of dialogue called examination dialogue that is closely related to persuasion dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aristotle. (1933). Metaphysics. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674992993.

  2. Aristotle. (1939). Topics (E. S. Forster, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aristotle. (1984). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans., J. O. Urmson, Revised). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2007). Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnes, J. (1980). Aristotle and the methods of ethics. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 34(3), 490–511.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Black, E., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 867–874).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Black, E., & Hunter A. (2009). An inquiry dialogue system. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 19(2): 173–209.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bolton, R. (1999). The epistemological basis of aristotelian dialectic. In M. Sim (Ed.), From Puzzles to Principles: Essays on Aristotle’s Dialectic. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Castelnerac, B., & Marion, M. (2009). Arguing for inconsistency: Dialectical games in the academy. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic (pp. 43–82). College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues. In Proceedings IJCAI-05 (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence), Edinburgh (pp. 1560–1561). Available at: http://ijcai.org/search.php.

  11. Fink, J. L. (2012). Introduction. In J. L. Fink (Ed.), The development of dialectic from Plato to Aristotle (pp. 1–23). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gordon, T. F., Friedrich, H., & Walton, D. (2018). Representing argumentation schemes with constraint handling rules. Argument & Computation, 9(2), 91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 875–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gordon, T. F. (2010). The carneades argumentation support system. In C. Reed & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation (pp. 145–156). College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1981). A history of Greek philosophy. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37(2), 130–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kok, E. M., Meyer, J. J. C., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2011). A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues. In P. McBurney, I. Rahwan, & S. Parsons (Eds.), Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6614, pp. 31–48). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Topical roots of formal dialectic. Argumentation, 27(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2007). About old and new dialectic: Dialogues, fallacies and strategies. Informal Logic, 27(1), 27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leff, M. (2006). Up from theory: Or I fought the Topoi and the Topoi won. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 36(2), 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgegesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Macagno, F., Walton, D., & Tindale, C. (2014). Analogical reasoning and semantic rules of inference. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 207(4), 419–432.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Macagno, F., Reed, C., & Walton D. (2017). Argumentation schemes, history, classifications and computational applications. IFColog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 4(8), 2493–2556.

    Google Scholar 

  25. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2007). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22, 95–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Prakken, H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2), 163–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prakken, H. (2011). An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy. Studies in Logic, 4(1), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rahwan, I., & McBurney, P. (2007). Argumentation technology: Introduction to the special issue. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6): 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reed, C. (2006). Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19(1), 22–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ross, W. D. (1949). Aristotle (5th ed.). Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Scott, G. A. (2002). Introduction. In G. A. Scott (Ed.), Does socrates have a method? (pp. 1–16). Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Simari, G., & Rahwan, I. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s topics. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2010). Examining the examination dialogue. In C. Reed & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation (pp. 31–44). College Books.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Verheij, B. (2001). Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes. In ICAIL 2001: The Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM. The full paper is available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications/pdf/argsch.pdf.

  37. Verheij, B. (2003). DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual arguments: On the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Vlastos, G. (1983). The socratic elenchus. In J. Annas (Ed.), Oxford studies in ancient philosophy (pp. 27–58). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Walton, D. (2002). Are some Modus Ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic, 22(1), 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2006), 745–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Walton, D. (2015). Profiles of dialogue: A method of argument fault diagnosis and repair. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(2), 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Walton, D., & Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing informal logic. Informal Logic, 35(4), 508–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2006). Common knowledge in argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6(1), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Walton, D. (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. University Press of America. http://www.dougwalton.ca/books/LDG84bk.pdf.

  46. Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Walton, D. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Walton, D., Toniolo, A., & Norman, T. J. (2014). Missing phases of deliberation dialogue for real applications. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/14ArgMAS.pdf.

  51. Wlodarczyk, M. (2000). Aristotelian dialectic and the discovery of truth. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 18, 153–210.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for Insight Grant 435-2012-0104: The Carneades Argumentation System. The author would also like to thank Benoit Castelnerac, Jakob L. Fink and Christopher Roser for discussions and help with translations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Joseph Andrew Bjelde

  2. Institut für Philosophie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    David Merry

  3. Institut für Philosophie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christopher Roser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Walton, D. (2021). Aristotelian Dialectic, Argumentation Theory and Artificial Intelligence. In: Bjelde, J.A., Merry, D., Roser, C. (eds) Essays on Argumentation in Antiquity. Argumentation Library, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70817-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation