Witness testimony evidence : argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law /
Douglas Walton.
- xvii, 365 pages : illustrations ; 23 cm
Includes bibliographical references (pages 339-351) and index.
Introduction -- Purpose of the Book -- Outline of the Book -- Witness Testimony as Argumentation -- Witness Testimony in Logic and Philosophy -- Contemptuous Attitude toward Testimony as Evidence -- Seeking a Rational Basis for Testimony -- Appeal to Witness Testimony as a Form of Argument -- Proof and Argument -- Witness Credibility -- Ad Hominem Attacks -- Character and Reputation -- Witness Testimony as Fallible Evidence -- Cases of Testimony Gone Wrong -- Categories of Failure -- Defeasible Arguments -- Types of Arguments and Generalizations -- The Tentative Nature of Defeasible Arguments -- Corroboration of Witness Testimony -- Argumentation Schemes for Position to Know Arguments -- Arguments from Expert Opinion -- The Form of Appeal to Witness Testimony as an Argument -- Strict and Defeasible Modus Ponens Arguments -- Factors in Evaluating Witness Testimony -- Other Systems -- Fact and Opinion -- Perception and Memory -- The Argumentation Scheme and Critical Questions -- Full Form of the Scheme and Critical Questions -- Plausible Reasoning in Legal Argumentation -- Chaining of Plausible Reasoning in Evidence -- Wigmore's Theory of Evidence -- Legal and Historical Background of Plausible Reasoning -- The Eikotic Argument -- Carneades' Example of the Snake and Rope -- Plausible Reasoning in a Trial -- Diagramming Witness Testimony as Evidence -- The Assault Example -- The Arson Example -- Linked and Convergent Arguments -- Convergence, Corroboration, and Credibility Corroboration -- Examples of Evidence as Corroboration and Convergence -- Credibility Corroboration Evidence -- Diagrams, Plausible Generalizations, and Enthymemes -- Analysis of a Homicide Case -- Evaluating Plausible Reasoning -- Rescher's System -- Theophrastus' Rule and the Weakest Link Principle -- A Method of Evaluation Proposed -- Summary of the Evaluation Method -- Scripts, Stories, and Anchored Narratives -- Scripts and Stories -- Missing Information in a Story -- What Makes a Story Plausible? -- Anchoring and Plausibility of Stories -- Testing a Story by Critically Examining It -- Components of a Story -- Practical Reasoning in Stories -- Explaining Goal-Directed Actions -- Corroboration of Witness Testimony -- Attacking the Plausibility of a Story -- The Process of Examining a Story -- The Whole Truth -- Competing Stories -- Nonexplicit Assumptions in a Story -- Use of an Argumentation Scheme -- Using Conclusions Drawn from the Story -- Assembling the Evidence -- Enthymemes -- Use of Gricean Implicature -- Use of Common Knowledge -- Probing to Reveal Unstated Assumptions -- Plausible Reasoning as a Tool for Testing Testimony -- The Adversarial Context of Legal Examination -- Obtaining Reliable Information -- A New Approach -- Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence -- Turning to a Dialogue Model -- Computational Dialectics -- Fundamental Notions -- Ordered Sequences of Moves in a Dialogue -- Moves as Speech Acts -- Types and Goals of Dialogues -- Dialectical Shifts -- Dialogue Models of Legal Argumentation -- Commitment Sets -- Retraction of Commitments -- Inconsistent Commitments -- Commitment and Belief Models -- Dialogue Rules and Dialectical Relevance -- Admissibility and Relevance in a Trial -- Persuasion Dialogue -- Critical Discussion -- Profiles of Dialogue -- Multiagent Systems -- Reputation Management in Multiagent Systems -- Dishonesty and Character Attack -- Burden of Proof -- Metadialogues -- Applying Dialogue Systems to Legal Argumentation -- Witness Examination as Peirastic Dialogue -- Information-Seeking Dialogue -- Types of Information-Seeking Dialogue -- What Is Information? -- The Positivistic View -- A Multiagent View -- Usefulness and Reliability of Information -- Information Seeking in a Trial -- Redefining Information -- Examination Dialogue -- Examination in Ancient Dialectic -- Examination Dialogue in Artificial Intelligence -- Peirastic and Exetastic Dialogue -- Critiquing Dialogue in Computing -- Attacking the Credibility of a Witness -- Examination in a Trial Setting -- Example of Critical Examination of Witness Testimony -- Embedding of Information Seeking -- Cross-Examination -- Order of Asking Questions -- Winning Strategies of Cross-Examination -- The Purpose of Cross-Examination -- The Limits of Dirty Tricks -- Interrogation as a Type of Dialogue -- Rules for Interrogation Dialogue -- Interrogation Contrasted with Examination -- Classifying and Defining Peirastic Examination Dialogue -- Classification System for Examination Dialogue -- Goal and Rules of Peirastic Examination Dialogue -- Applying Dialectical Models to the Trial -- The Advocacy Framework of the Trial -- The Function of Witness Testimony in the Trial -- Three Components of the Trial -- An Objection and a Reply -- The Viewpoint of the Trier -- How Evidence Comes into a Trial -- Questioning a Witness -- Argumentative Nature of Witness Examination -- Leading Questions -- Questioning an Expert Witness -- Expert Consultation Dialogue -- Embedding of Information in Persuasion -- The Problem of Analyzing Relevance -- Relevance and the Trial Rules -- Peirastic Relevance -- The Fair Trial as a Normative Model -- The Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Compared -- Can a Trial Be Too Adversarial? -- Information Seeking in the Fair Trial -- Balance between Persuasion and Information in a Trial -- Reasoned Argumentation in a Fair Trial -- The Dialectical Structure of the Trial -- Sequence of Dialogue Embeddings in the Trial -- Summary of the Dialectical Model of the Trial -- Supporting and Attacking Witness Testimony -- Corroborative Evidence -- The Fallacy of Double Counting -- A New Scheme for Corroborative Evidence -- New Computational Systems for Legal Argumentation -- The DefLog System -- The Carneades System -- Schemes and Critical Questions in Carneades -- Witness Testimony in Carneades -- The Scheme and the Critical Questions -- Corroborative Testimony in Carneades -- Further Research on Carneades -- Asking of Questions in Examination Dialogue -- Profiles of Dialogue -- Three Levels of Questioning -- Questioning Skills in Information-Seeking Dialogue -- Types of Questions and Replies -- Leading Questions -- Questioning and Answering in the Interrogation -- Types of Questions in Interrogation Dialogue -- Loaded Questions -- Uses of the New Peirastic Theory -- Three Applications -- Dealing with Unreliable Witness Testimony -- Summary of the Theory -- The Eight Steps in the Method. 1. 2. Chapter 1. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 6. 7. 7.1. 8. 8.1. 9. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 10. 10.1. Chapter 2. 1. 1.1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 6. 6.1. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 8. 8.1. Chapter 3. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 5. 5.1. 6. 6.1. 7. 7.1. 8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 9. 9.1. 9.2. 10. 10.1. 10.2. Chapter 4. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4. 4.1. 5. 5.1. 6. 7. 7.1. 8. 9. 9.1. 10. Chapter 5. 1. 1.1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3. 3.1. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 8. 8.1. 9. 9.1. 9.2. 10. 10.1. 10.2. Chapter 6. 1. 1.1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 3. 3.1. 4. 4.1. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 8. 8.1. 9. 9.1. 9.2. Chapter 7. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 8. 8.1.
"Recent work in artificial intelligence has increasingly turned to argumentation as a rich, interdisciplinary area of research that can provide new methods related to evidence and reasoning in the area of law. Douglas Walton provides an introduction to basic concepts, tools and methods in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence as applied to the analysis and evaluation of witness testimony. He shows how witness testimony is by its nature inherently fallible and sometimes subject to disastrous failures. At the same time such testimony can provide evidence that is not only necessary but inherently reasonable for logically guiding legal experts to accept or reject a claim. Walton shows how to overcome the traditional disdain for witness testimony as a type of evidence shown by logical positivists, and the views of trial sceptics who doubt that trial rules deal with witness testimony in a way that yields a rational decision-making process."--Publisher's website.