Abstract
Much research on structured argumentation aims to satisfy the rationality
postulates of direct and indirect consistency and strict (deductive) closure. However,
examples like the lottery paradox indicate that it is sometimes rational to accept
sets of propositions that are indirectly inconsistent or not deductively closed.
This paper proposes a variant of the ASPIC+ framework that violates indirect consistency and full strict closure but satisfies direct consistency and restricted forms of strict closure and indirect consistency.
postulates of direct and indirect consistency and strict (deductive) closure. However,
examples like the lottery paradox indicate that it is sometimes rational to accept
sets of propositions that are indirectly inconsistent or not deductively closed.
This paper proposes a variant of the ASPIC+ framework that violates indirect consistency and full strict closure but satisfies direct consistency and restricted forms of strict closure and indirect consistency.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Computational Models of Argument |
| Subtitle of host publication | Proceedings of COMMA 2016 |
| Editors | Pietro Baroni, Thomas F. Gordon, Tatjana Scheffler, Manfred Stede |
| Place of Publication | Amsterdam - Berlin - Washington DC |
| Publisher | IOS Press |
| Pages | 419-430 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-1-61499-686-6 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-1-61499-685-9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Publication series
| Name | Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence |
|---|---|
| Publisher | IOS Press |
| Volume | 287 |
| ISSN (Print) | 0922-6389 |
| ISSN (Electronic) | 1879-8314 |
Keywords
- Rational acceptance
- Rationatlity postulates
- Lottery paradox