Interleave argument building and argument evaluation
310 Gerasimos G. Rigatos and Spyros G. Tzafestas
6. Koski, A., Juhola, M., and Meriste, M.: Syntactic Recognition of ECG signals by attributed finite automata. Pattern Recognition. Elsevier. 28, (1995), 1927-1940
| 7. | Martins J.F., Pires A.J., Vilela Mendes R. and Dente J.A.: Modelling Electrome- | |
|---|---|---|
| chanical Drive Systems: A Formal Language Approach. Proc. of | IEEE Indus- | |
1 Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, Greece
antoniou@ics.forth.gr
2 Department of Computer Science, University of Crete, Greece
| [4]. | An alternative approach is to evaluate the status of arguments or conclusions during |
|---|
Usually approaches in the latter category tend to have lower complexity that those in the first category. For example, defeasible logic has, in its simple form, linear complex-ity [19]. However for a long time it has been commonly accepted that these approaches suffer from certain representational problems, among others regarding floating con-clusions and zombie paths [21]. Perhaps many have seen these defeasible reasoning approaches as “quick and dirty”.
In two recent articles [15, 16] Horty reinvigoured the discussion about the intuitions and nature of defeasible reasoning by questioning commonly accepted views about cer-tain nonmonotonic reasoning patterns. In particular, he argued that argument reinstate-ment and floating conclusions may not be reasonable patterns in all instances. We can conclude, that the directly sceptical approaches are not just quick solutions, but have also adequate abstract properties. This argument is certainly encouraging since in the
