An integrated theory of causal stories and evidential arguments

Abstract

In the process of proof alternative stories that explain 'what happened' in a case are tested using arguments based on evidence. Building on the author's earlier hybrid theory, this paper presents a formal theory that combines causal stories and evidential arguments, further integrating the different types of reasoning in a framework for structured argumentation. This then allows for correct reasoning with causal and evidential rules, and further integrates arguments and stories by grounding them both in well-known dialectical argumentation semantics.

Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning

“…In Section 3, connections between argumentative and scenario approaches are presented. This section highlights developments in the hybrid argumentative-narrative theory of evidential reasoning (Bex, 2014(Bex, , 2011Bex et al, 2010). Section 4 discusses connections between scenario and probabilistic approaches.…”

“…The second is the narrative approach (Pennington and Hastie, 1993;Wagenaar et al, 1993;Josephson, 2002), where competing scenarios about "what happened" are constructed and compared. In the project "Making Sense of Evidence", which ran from 2005 to 2009, some of the current authors tried to marry these two approaches in a formal hybrid theory of scenarios and arguments (Bex, 2014(Bex, , 2011Bex et al, 2010).…”

Incorporation of complex doctrinal theories in a model of statutory interpretation

“…Unlike its treatment in Philosophy and Jurisprudence, the first topic, causation, is of relatively rare interest to AI and Law researchers, although there have been a number of valuable recent contributions (Prakken and Renooij [12]; Hoekstra and Breuker [6], and especially the whole new account of causal reasoning about evidence proposed in a series of works by Bex [3]. Zurek [15] has elaborated an account of legal interpretation based on causal relations between actions having different deontic modalities.…”

Research in progress: report on the ICAIL 2017 doctoral consortium

“…All the approaches aim not only to provide a better understanding of evidence based legal reasoning, but also draw inspiration from the limitations of human reasoners and propose ways reasoning could be improved. Furthermore, there have been attempts of various combinations among these approaches to provide a more comprehensive account of one's reasoning in specific domains (Bex 2015;Vlek et al 2014;Timmer et al 2014). Causal analyses in these studies are at their early stages but have the potential of augmenting the various theories of evidential reasoning.…”

“…Existing formal theories of causation are not directly applicable to law due to the highly technical features of the theories and simplified understanding of legal causation. There have been attempts to combine various formal approaches to analyse legal cases (Bex 2015;Halpern and Hitchcock 2010), but there still remains a gap between formal theories of causation and the practical needs of causal analysis in law. In particular, it can be observed that there are significant discrepancies between the legal and formal approaches because of the limited guidelines given for the legal causal analysis and the complicated, technical subject matter.…”