Titlebook: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument; A Study of Defeasibl Henry Prakken Book 1997 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 1997 Argument

遮陽傘

書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument被引頻次




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument年度引用




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument讀者反饋




書目名稱Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

引起

The Role of Logic in Legal Reasoning,easoning. I shall do so mainly by discussing some objections to logical methods which can be found in legal philosophy and AI-and-law. Some of them are an application to the legal domain of more general criticism of logic discussed in Chapter 1. Section 2.1 briefly discusses some basic misunderstand

狂亂

The Need for New Logical Tools,ods, for which reason new logical tools are needed. In this chapter I shall in more detail go into the causes of the limitations and the nature of the needed tools. A first cause is the rule-guided rather than rule-governed nature of legal reasoning. Because of the open, unpredictable nature of the

adulterant

Logics for Nonmonotonic Reasoning,ious chapter two basic motivations for using nonmonotonic forms of reasoning. The first is common to all domains of common-sense reasoning. In solving a problem people do not always have enough information to make a safe step towards the conclusion; instead, they often have to jump to conclusions by

Obsessed

Neuralgia

Preferring the Most Specific Argument,e solutions to a problem and . the exceptional one if it exists. In this method exceptions can be left implicit: no use has to be made of exception or applicability clauses, since exceptions are identified as a result of the choice. As already mentioned in Chapter 3, when applied to legislation this

conceal

Reasoning with Inconsistent Information,nt since, as noted in Chapter 3, the information with which a lawyer is confronted is often contradictory. However, the relevance of this chapter is not restricted to the legal domain; in other domains of common-sense reasoning people are also often confronted with conflicting sources of information

勉強(qiáng)

Reasoning about Priority Relations,e expressed as an ordering on rules. However, apart from specificity almost nothing has yet been said about the possible sources of the priorities. For some time in AI the (often implicit) hope has been that the sources of these priorities are of a general, domain independent nature. As a consequenc

星球的光亮度

Systems for Defeasible Argumentation,t, Section 9.1 gives a conceptual description in general terms of the notion of an argumentation system, followed by a discussion in Section 9.2 of the main systems of this kind that have so far been developed. After that, Section 9.3, discusses some other recent developments, which are not argument

魅力