Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:40:36.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial cognitive systems: Where does argumentation fit in?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

John Fox
John Fox
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1, United Kingdom. John.fox@eng.ox.ac.uk www.cossac.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mercier and Sperber (M&S) suggest that human reasoning is reflective and has evolved to support social interaction. Cognitive agents benefit from being able to reflect on their beliefs whether they are acting alone or socially. A formal framework for argumentation that has emerged from research on artificial cognitive systems that parallels M&S's proposals may shed light on mental processes that underpin social interactions.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 78 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Besnard, P. & Hunter, A. (2008) Elements of argumentation. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, S., Fox, J., Elsdon, D. & Hammond, P. (1997) A flexible architecture for a general intelligent agent. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 9:407–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elvang-Goransson, M., Krause, P. J. & Fox, J. (1993) Acceptability of arguments as logical uncertainty. In: Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty: Proceedings, European Conference ECSQUARU 93, ed. Clarke, M., Kruse, R. & Moral, S., pp. 79–84. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (1980) Making decisions under the influence of memory. Psychological Review 87(2):190–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (2003) Logic, probability and the cognitive foundations of rational belief. Journal of Applied Logic 1:197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (in press) Arguing about the evidence. In: Evidence, inference and enquiry, ed. Dawid, P., Twining, W. & Vasilaki, M.. Oxford University Press/British Academy.Google Scholar
Fox, J., Beveridge, M. & Glasspool, D. (2003) Understanding intelligent agents: Analysis and synthesis. AI Communications 16(3):139–52.Google Scholar
Fox, J., Clark, D., Glowinski, A. & O'Neil, M. (1990) Using predicate logic to integrate qualitative reasoning and classical decision theory. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20(2):347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. & Das, S. (2000) Safe and sound: Artificial intelligence in hazardous applications. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Grecu, D., Modgil, S., South, M. & Patkar, V. (2007) Argumentation-based inference and decision-making: A medical perspective. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6):34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., Krause, P. J. & Elvang-Goransson, M (1993) Argumentation as a general framework for uncertain reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Heckerman, D. and Mamdani, E. H. pp. 428–34. Morgan Kaufman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2009) The uncertain reasoner: Bayes, logic, and rationality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:105–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OpenClinical. (2001–2006) PROforma: Formal knowledge representation method for the development and execution of clinical guidelines. Available at: http://www.openclinical.org/gmm_proforma.html.Google Scholar