Symposium on Argument and Computation

Funding

• The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
• The University of Aberdeen.
• The University of Dundee.

The symposium will be held at Bonskeid House, 4 miles from Pitlochry. Pitlochry is accessible by train from Glasgow and Edinburgh international airports in under two hours.

Organisation

The symposium will be initiated through the presentation of tutorials from prominent scholars reflecting the broad range of interests represented at the symposium. These will be followed by position statements putting forward both the philosophical and computational perspective on argumentation. At this point the attendees will separate into a number of groups (summarised here).

Each group will work in a particular room, and will be serviced with a number of laptop computers, connected on a symposium-wide LAN with two printers, and as reasonable an Internet connection as can be provided given the physical restrictions of Bonskeid House. Attendees will be encouraged to bring a few key texts or papers, and the organisers will use personal resources and those of the universities of Aberdeen and Dundee to furnish the symposium with a small library. The present contents of the library are here; any further suggestions please to Tim or Chris.

Objectives

1. Bringing together a small number of researchers from several different fields to encourage the exchange of new ideas and the establishment of new collaboration.
2. Producing a handbook authored jointly by all participants which will serve to disseminate to a wide audience the defining problems, issues, and avenues for future work. Preliminary agreement has been reached on publication
3. Introducing a small number of high quality research students to collaborative ventures between computational sciences and argumentation, and to encourage them to pursue their own research interests with an awareness of the ties with areas of mathematics, philosophy and AI.

These groups and their foci are provisional. Furthermore, the members of a group may adapt its focus during the course of the event.

Can dialogue logics and formal dialectics be used to specify communication protocols? Can differentiation of dialogue types inform either syntax or semantics of inter agent interaction? What challenges does informal logic present to the level of formalisation required in multi agent systems? How does argument fit into models of social commitment used in multi-agent systems specification?

How closely are large scale implementations of defeasible reasoning related to theories of argumentation? To what extent has argumentation theory and informal logic tackled problems of uncertainty and incompleteness, and could those discussions inform development of computational theories? What can working models of defeasible reasoning contribute to the study of argumentation - might they, for example, provide an empirical testbed for theories of argumentation? Can theories of argumentation and informal logic contribute to the development of non-classical logics for practical reasoning? How well do models of non-deductive reasoning devised in the philosophy community compare with those developed with practical application in mind? In particular, what approaches have philosophy and artificial intelligence taken to the emerging key problem of abduction?

Computational models of legal reasoning have long made use of models based on the notion of arguments, yet to what extent are these underlying notions in harmony with those developed in argumentation theory? Can recent work on argument structure contribute to richer or more powerful constructs in legal reasoning systems? Do recent developments in jurisprudential argumentation theory present useful constructs for computational formalisation, and in particular, might pragma-dialectic ideas interface well with AI models? How adequate are Toulminian theories of legal argument for computational exploitation? To what extent are legal systems of computational dialectics based on formal dialectics? Finally, is there a place for legal rhetoric and oration in computational models?

How closely does the computational design of linguistic argument follow theories argument process and product developed in informal logic and argumentation theory. Do theories of rhetoric and fallacy play a role in linguistic argumentation? Does visual argumentation lend itself to artificial generation and analysis. If so, what are the rules by which such generation and analysis might proceed? How can interpersonal demands be construed in computational models of interaction, and how important is it that those demands are handled accurately? What are the relationships between particular schools of though in argumentation (such as the pragma-dialectic) and computational models of language?

Can the construction of computational models of argument inform argumentation theory, informal logic, rhetoric, and the theory of fallacies? Are there areas other than those identified as sections in which aspects of argumentation may inform computational research? Is, for example, fallacy theory a valuable component of computational models? How might the operationalisation of argument schemes proceed, and to what end? To what extent can Perelman's "new rhetoric" be exploited computationally? Might AI represent an arena for testing radically different models of argument, and if so, what methodology is appropriate for such evaluation?

Monday 26th June 2000 Arrival and welcome dinner.

Symposium starts Tuesday 27th June

• Day 1 (Tuesday): Keynote tutorials, panel session and discussion.

  Morning
  9.30am	Welcome and Introduction	Chris Reed
  10.00am	Keynote tutorial: Argumentation tools for communication in computer systems	Douglas Walton
  11.00am	Coffee
  11.30am	Keynote tutorial: Argumentation in the real world	John Fox
  Afternoon
  2.00pm	Panel session chaired by Tim Norman addressing the following questions

  • Why use argument and what are the options?
  • What are the important features of argument that should make their way into a computational model and are there any that can't or shouldn't?
  • How well do current theories scale up to large arguments?
  • Does the notion of dialectic have an important role to play in argument?
  • What relevance has Toulmin's theory to current research?
  
  
• Day 2 (Wednesday)

  Morning
  10.00am	Position paper presentation, response and discussion within the interdisciplinary groups
  11.00am	Coffee
  11.30am	Position paper presentation, response and discussion within the interdisciplinary groups
  Afternoon
  2.00pm	Preparation of plenary feedback within groups
  3.00pm	Coffee
  3.30pm - 6.00pm	Presentation of feedback from each group to all participants (about 30 mins per group)

• Day 3 (Thursday): Group work.

  Both morning and afternoon sessions will involve discussion within the five groups. The purpose of this group discussion is to establish a consensus on the requirements for both argumentation theory and artificial intelligence within each area of interest. Each group is to consist of a balance between argumentation theorists and computationalists.

• Day 4 (Friday): Free time.

  There are no formal activities planned. This is an opportunity for relaxation and informal discussion. A trip to the Edradour distillery has been organised. There is also Ben Vrackie, and the Queen's view at Loch Tummel. A pub meal at the Moulin, and depending on the weather, tea and croquet on the lawn.

• Day 5 (Saturday): Group work.

  Both morning and afternoon sessions will be dedicated to the preparation of a document that outlines the requirements for both argumentation and artificial intelligence within the group areas.

• Day 6 (Sunday): Feedback and document preparation.
  

  Morning: All participants meet again to discuss, and seek feedback on the draft documents prepared by each group.

  Afternoon: Participants return to their groups, and work toward the completion of the documents.

• Day 7 (Monday 3rd July 2000)
  

  Morning: Document completion.

  After lunch: close.

The working day is planned from 10am to 6.30pm, with breaks for coffee of half an hour mid morning and afternoon, and a lunch break of one and a half hours at 12.30pm.

Argument and Computational Societies

Argument and Practical Reasoning

Argument and Legal Reasoning

Argument and Computational Linguistics

Computational Models of Argument

Pitlochry and Bonskeid House

Bonskeid House (Tel: (+44)1796 473208; Fax: (+44)1796 473310; Email: info@bonskeid-house.co.uk; further information here) is located four miles north west of Pitlochry near the Tay Forest Park and Loch Tummel. Click here for a map of the area.

Scotland

A clickable map of Scotland is provided by the Gazetteer for Scotland. (Pitlochry is in the Perth and Kinross council area.)

Airports

• Edinburgh. There are two web sites for Edinburgh airport: the official site, and an unofficial site, both of which are useful.
• Glasgow. Click here for the Glasgow airport web site.

Train Timetable information

Train timetable information is available from the Railtrack web site: follow this link.

Travel to Pitlochry on Monday 26th June 2000

Arrival at Edinburgh International Airport

• The easiest option is a taxi to Edinburgh Haymarket rail station (about £12).
• There are also buses to both Haymarket and Waverley, and you could catch a cab to Waverley (though the traffic is likely to be worse).
• From Edinburgh Waverley, direct trains for Pitlochry leave at 1340, 1632, 1740 and 1940 (and all stop at Haymarket 4mins later).
• The journey takes about one and three quarter hours.
• From Pitlochry station, take a taxi to "Bonskeid House": we will have arranged preferential rates with the local taxi firm.

Arrival at Glasgow International Airport

• The easiest option is a taxi to Glasgow Queen Street rail station (about £15).
• The alternative is shuttle bus to Paisley Gilmour St., train to Glasgow Central, then 5 minute walk to Queen Street.
• From Glasgow Queen Street, direct trains for Pitlochry depart at 1010 and 1610; there are also departures at 1338, 1638, 1740 which require a change at Perth.
• The journey takes about 1hr 40mins.
• From Pitlochry station, take a taxi to "Bonskeid House": we will have arranged preferential rates with the local taxi firm.

Departure from Pitlochry on Monday 3rd July 2000

To Edinburgh International Airport

• There are direct trains from Pitlochry departing at 1216, 1416, and 1618.
• All stop at Haymarket and then Waverley, from where you can catch a bus or taxi for the airport.

To Glasgow International Airport

• There are direct trains departing Pitlochry at 1059 and 1833, otherwise, catch one of the Edinburgh trains and change at Perth.

FOR THOSE TRAVELLING FROM SOUTHERN ENGLAND

You may like to know that Easyjet have remarkably cheap flights to Inverness. From the airport, take a taxi to Inverness rail station, then there are direct trains at 1440 and 1650 to Pitlochry. The journey is about an hour and a half through wonderful highland scenery. (Current online return flight price, inc. tax, £105).