- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Introduction: Dialectical legal argument: Formal and informal models [Book Review]
Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):107-113 (2000)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Author's Profile
Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation: Springer, 2017, 2nd edn, pp. 363.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (3):307-314.
Henry Prakken (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in law.Bart Verheij - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
Patricia Bizzell & Bruce Herzberg (eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument.R. P. Loui - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 3:143-150.
Henry Prakken, logical tools for modelling legal argument: A study of defeasible reasoning in law. [REVIEW]L. M. M. Royakkers - 2000 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):379-387.
Hendrik Kaptein, Henry Prakken and Bart verheij (eds): Review of legal evidence and proof: Statistics, stories, logic. [REVIEW]Douglas Walton - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):371-377.
A dialogical theory of presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Eveline T. Feteris, Fundamental of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories of Justification of Judicial Decisions (1999). [REVIEW]William Twining - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):223-229.
Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Robert Alexy - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
40 (#563,866)
6 months
5 (#1,050,400)
2009-01-28
Downloads
40 (#563,866)
6 months
5 (#1,050,400)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation: Springer, 2017, 2nd edn, pp. 363.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (3):307-314.
References found in this work
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument.Douglas Walton - 1998 - University of Toronto Press.
A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Rationales and argument moves.R. P. Loui & Jeff Norman - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (3):159-189.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-667477cd97-lv8mh dc2