Risk Agoras: Dialectical Argumentation for Scientific Reasoning
Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons
TL;DR
This paper introduces a formal dialectical argumentation framework enabling intelligent systems to reason about scientific uncertainties and conflicts, specifically applied to assessing chemical carcinogenicity.
Contribution
It presents a novel formal model grounded in scientific philosophy for qualitative reasoning about scientific uncertainty and debate.
Findings
Framework effectively models scientific uncertainty
Enables reasoning about conflicting scientific claims
Applicable to chemical carcinogenicity assessment
Abstract
We propose a formal framework for intelligent systems which can reason about scientific domains, in particular about the carcinogenicity of chemicals, and we study its properties. Our framework is grounded in a philosophy of scientific enquiry and discourse, and uses a model of dialectical argumentation. The formalism enables representation of scientific uncertainty and conflict in a manner suitable for qualitative reasoning about the domain.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSemantic Web and Ontologies · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge