Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allen, R. J. (1980). Structuring Jury Decisionmaking in Criminal Cases: A Unified Constitutional Approach to Evidentiary Devices, Harvard Law Review, 94(2), 321–368.
Allen, R. J. (1981). Presumptions in Civil Actions Reconsidered, Iowa Law Review, 66, 1981, 843–867.
Allen, R. J. (1993). How Presumptions Should be Allocated: Constitutional Adjudication, the Demands of Knowledge, and Epistemological Modesty, Northwestern University Law Review, 88(1), 436–456.
Allen, R. J. (1994). Burdens of Proof, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Modern Legal Discourse, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 17(3), 1994, 627–646.
Allen, R. J. and Callen, C. R. (2003). Teaching Bloody Instructions: Civil Presumptions and the Lessons of Isomorphism, Quinnipiac Law Review, 21, 933–960.
Allen, R. J. and Pardo, M. S. (2007). The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence, Journal of Legal Studies, 36, 107–140.
Anderson, T., Shum, D. and Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle, (1984). Posterior Analytics, The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 1. ed. Barnes, J., Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Armstrong, K. and Possley, M. (1999). The Verdict: Dishonor, Chicago Tribune, January 10, 1999, 1,12.
Ashford, H. A. and Risinger, D. M. (1969). Presumptions, Assumptions and Due Process in Criminal Cases: A Theoretical Overview, The Yale Law Journal, 79, 165–208.
Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2007). Argumentation and Standards of Proof, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2007), ed. Winkels, Radboud, New York: ACM Press, 107–116.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2005). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153–171.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and McBurney, P. (2006). Computational Representation of Practical Argument, Synthese, 152(2), 157–206.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. and Walton, D. (2013). Distinctive Features of Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues, Argument and Computation, 4(2), 105–127.
Bailenson, J. (2001). Contrast Ratio: Shifting Burden of Proof in Informal Arguments, Discourse Processes, 32(1), 29–41.
Bailenson, J. and Rips, L. J. (1996). Informal Reasoning and Burden of Proof, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 3–16.
Bailey, R. (1999). Precautionary Tale, (last accessed December 24, 2008).
Barnes, J. (1990). The Toils of Skepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barth, E. M. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1997). Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5(4): 249–261.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Doutre, S., and Dunne, P. E. (2007). Audiences in Argumentation Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1), 42–71.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, G. (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150: 97–143.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Doutre, S. and Dunne, P. E. (2008). Asking the Right Question: Forcing Commitment in Examination Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, eds. Besnard, P., Doutre, S. and Hunter, A.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 49–60.
Bex, F. J. (2011). Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence – A Formal Hybrid Theory. Springer: Dordrecht.
Bex, F. J., van den Braak, S.W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., Verheij, B. and Vreeswijk, G. (2007). Sense–making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments, Law, Probability and Risk 6, 145–168.
Bex, F. J., van Koppen, P. J., Prakken, H., and Verheij, B. (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(10), 123–152.
Bex, F. J. and Walton, D. (2012). Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation: Three Case Studies, Law, Probability and Risk, 11(2–3), 113–133.
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003).Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence, Argument Schemes and Generalizations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2–3), 125–165.
Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2007). A Generative Inquiry Dialogue System. Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1010–1017.
Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2009). An Inquiry Dialogue System, Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brewka, G. (2001). Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus, Journal of Logic and Computation 11(2), 257–282.
Brewka, G. and Gordon, T. F. (2010). Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction. In Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., and Simari, G.R., eds., Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 3–12.
Brown, D. G. (1955). The Nature of Inference, The Philosophical Review, 64(3), 351–369.
Caminada, M. (2004). For the Sake of Argument: Explorations into Argument-Based Reasoning, PhD thesis, Free University of Amsterdam: .
Caminada, M. (2008). On the Issue of Contraposition of Defeasible Rules. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. eds. Besnard, P., Doutre, S., and Hunter, A.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 109–115.
Clark, K. L. (1978). Negation as Failure, Logic and Data Bases, ed. H. Gallaire and J. Minker, New York: Plenum Press, 293–322.
Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L. J. (1979). On the Psychology of Prediction: Whose is the Fallacy?Cognition, 7(4), 385–407.
Cohen, L. J. (1980). Some Historical Remarks on the Baconian Notion of Probability, Journal of the History of Ideas, 41 (2), 219–231.
DeMorgan, A. (1926). Formal Logic. The Open Court Company: London. Reprint of the original Taylor and Walton edition of 1847.
Dohnal, M. (1992). Ignorance and Uncertainty in Reliability Reasoning. Microelectronics and Reliability, 32(8), 1157–70.
Doutre, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M., and Barden, W. (2006). Information-Seeking Agent Dialogs with Permissions and Arguments, Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Technical Report: .
Dube, F. (2002). Judge Criticizes ‘Hired Gun’ Experts. National Post (Canada), November 18, 2002, A1,A5.
Dung, P. (1995).On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.
Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering Inconsistency through Examination Dialogues. Proceedings IJCAI-05, (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. Edinburgh, 1560–1561. Available at: .
Farley, A. M. and Freeman, K. (1995). Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation’, 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. New York: ACM Press, 156–164.
Feteris, E. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Finocchiaro, M. (1980). Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Finocchiaro, M. (2005). Arguments about Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, J. and Das, S. (2000). Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frank, J. (1963). Courts on Trial. New York: Atheneum.
Freeman, J. B. (1995). The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, eds. Hansen, H. V.and Pinto, R. C., University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 265–273.
Freeman, K. and Farley, A. M. (1996). A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3–4), 163–197.
Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (1996). Origins and Developments of the Precautionary Principle, The Precautionary Principle and International Law, eds. Freestone, David and Hey, Ellen. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 3–15.
Garner, B. A. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed. St Paul, Minn: Thomson Reuters.
Gaskins, R. H. (1992). Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Godden, D. M. and Walton, D. (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation, Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(2), 2007, 313–346.
Gordon, T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gordon, T. F. (2008). Hybrid Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes, CMNA 08: Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Patras, Greece.
Gordon, T. F. (2010). An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System, Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, eds. Reed, C. and Tindale, C. W., London: College Publications, 145–156.
Gordon, T. F. and Karacapilidis, N. (1997).The Zeno Argumentation Framework, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, ed. Branting, L. Karl. New York: ACM Press, 10–18.
Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades Argumentation Framework, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, eds. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 195–207.
Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2006a). Pierson v. Post Revisited, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, eds. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 208–219.
Gordon, T. F.Prakken, H., and Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof, Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 875–896.
Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2009). Proof Burdens and Standards. Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence, eds. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G.. Berlin: Springer, 239–260.
Governatori, G. (2008). Defeasible Logic:
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, in Davidson, D. and Harman, G., eds., The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 64–75.
Hage, J. (2000). Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8(2–3): 137–172.
Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. R. (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(2): 113–167.
Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2007). The Burden of Proof and its Role in Argumentation. Argumentation, 21(1), 39–61.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria 37(2), 130–155.
Hansen, H. V. (2003). Theories of Presumptions and Burdens of Proof, in Blair, J. A., Farr, D., Hansen, H. V., Johnson, R. H., and Tindale, C. W., eds., Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
Hastings, A. C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Hathcock, J. N. (2000). The Precautionary Principle – an Impossible Burden of Proof for New Products, AgBioForum, 3(4), 255–258.
Hoenig, M. (2002). Products Liability: Jury Rejection of Uncontradicted Expert Testimony. New York Law Journal, 228: 3–6.
James, F. (1961). Burdens of Proof, Virginia Law Review, 47(1), 1961, 51–70.
Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumptions and Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266.
Kauffeld, F. (2003). The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and Burden of Proof, Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., and Henkemans, A. F. Snoek, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 136–146.
Keppens, J. (2009). Conceptions of Vagueness in Subjective Probability for Evidential Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed. Governatori, G.. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 89–99.
Kiralfy, A. (1987). The Burden of Proof. Abington: Professional Books.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Appeal to Ignorance, in Hansen, H. V. and Pinto, R. C., eds., Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 251–264.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1996). Can We Ever Pin One Down to a Formal Fallacy? In van Benthem, J., van Eemeren, F. H., and Frank Veltman, eds., Logic and Argumentation, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 129–141.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of Dialogue, in Gerbrandy, J., Marx, M., de Rijke, M. and Venema, Y., eds., JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 25–36.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese 127(1–2), 141–159.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues, Anyone Who Has a View, ed. Van Eemeren, F. H. et al., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 83–90.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2007). On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage, Argumentation, 21(3), 2007, 233–242.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic. Argumentation, 27(1), 71–87.
Lascher, E. L. (1999). The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error and Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lodder, Arno R. (1999). Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Loftus, E. F. (2003). Our Changeable Memories: Legal and Practical Implications. Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–234.
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366.
Loui, R. P. (1998). Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14(1), 1–38.
Macagno, F. and Walton, D. (2011). Reasoning from Paradigms and Negative Evidence, Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(1), 92–116.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). How to Stop Talking to Tortoises, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20(4), 705–717.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1981). The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse, 24, 159–177.
Mackenzie, J. (1990). Four Dialogue Systems. Studia Logica 49(4), 567–583.
McBurney, P. and Parsons, S. (2001). Chance Discovery Using Dialectical Argumentation. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Terano, T., Nishida, T., Namatame, A., Tsumoto, S., Ohsawa, Y., and Washio, T.Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2253, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 414–424.
McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D. and Parsons, S. (2007). The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95–132.
Morman, D. (2005). The Wild and Wooly World of Inference and Presumptions – When Silence is Deafening, The Florida Bar Journal, 79(10), 38–43.
Nute, D. (2001). Defeasible Logic: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Proceedings of INAP 2001, 14th International Conference on Applications of Prolog, IF Computer Japan, Tokyo, 87–114.
Nute, D. (1994). Defeasible Logic. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 353–395.
Pardo, M. S. and Allen, R. J. (2007). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation, Law and Philosophy 27(3), 223–268.
Park, R. C., Leonard, D. P., and Goldberg, S. H. (1998). Evidence Law, St. Paul: Minnesota: West Group.
Parsons, S. and Jennings, N. (1997). Negotiation through Argumentation: A Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ed. Tokoro, Mario. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 267–274.
Peirce, C. S. (1934a). Belief and Judgement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1934b). Collected Papers, vol V. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. In J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (trans.), 2nd edition, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (First published, as La Nouvelle Rhetorique, in 1958.)
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge: MA, The MIT Press.
Prakken, H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure, Fundamenta Informaticae 48(2), 253–271.
Prakken, H. (2001a). Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127(1–2), 187–219.
Prakken, H. (2002). Models of Dispute Resolution: A Formal Framework and an Application. , 1–69.
Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1009–1040.
Prakken, H. (2006). Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2), 163–188.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7(1–2), 25–75.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2006). Presumptions and Burdens of Proof, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, ed. van Engers, T. M., Amsterdam: IOS Press, 21–30.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2007). Formalising Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM Press, 97–106.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2009). A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof. Legal Evidence and Burden of Proof, ed. Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., and Verheij, B. Farnham: Ashgate, 223–253.
Prakken, H., Reed, C., and Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the Burden of Proof, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on AI and Law, June 6–11, Bologna, Italy. New York: The Association for Computing Machinery, 115–124.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2011). On Modelling Burdens and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation. In Atkinson, K. D. (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2011: The Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 83–92.
Recuerda, M. (2008). Dangerous Interpretations of the Precautionary Principle and the Foundational Values of the European Food Law: Risk versus Risk, Journal of Food Law and Policy, 4(1), 1–44.
Reed, C. (2006). Representing Dialogic Argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19, 22–31.
Reed, C. and Rowe, G. (2004) Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(4), 961–979.
Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003). Applications of Argumentation Schemes. In Argumentation and Its Applications: Proceedings of the 4th OSSA Conference, ed. Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H., Windsor, Canada.
Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003a). Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed., van Eemeren, F. H., et al. Amsterdam: Sicsat, 881–886.
Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003a). Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product, Proceedings of the Conference Celebrating Informal Logic @25, eds., Blair, J. A., Farr, D., Hansen, H. V., Johnson, R. H. and Tindale, C. W. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor, Ontario. (CD-ROM.)
Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2007). Argumentation Schemes in Dialogue, Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground: Proceedings of OSSA. ed. Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R., H., and Godden, D. M. Windsor, Ontario (CD-ROM.)
Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2), 81–132.
Reiter, R. (1987). Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Annual Review of Computer Science, 2, 147–186.
Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to Logic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible Reasoning. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rescher, N. (2006). Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rescorla, M. (2009a). Shifting the Burden of Proof?The Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 86–109.
Rescorla, M. (2009b). Assertion and its Constitutive Norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(1), 98–130.
Ricco, Robert, B. (2011). Individual Differences in Distinguishing Licit from Illicit Ways of Discharging the Burden of Proof, Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 616–631.
Safer, Jay G. (2002). Evolving Standards on Expert Witnesses. New York Law Journal 228: s4–s12.
Sartor, G. (1993). Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. Rechtstheorie, 24, 281–316.
Weast, Schaffer v., Supreme Court of the United States, 2005. U.S. Lexis 8554, decided November 14, 2005.
Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1986.
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, R. C. and Riesback, C. K. (1981). Inside Computer UnderstandingHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, R. C., Kass, A., and Riesbeck, C. K. (1994). Inside Case-Based Explanation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schum, D. A. (1994).Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Sidgwick, A. (1883). Fallacies. London: Kegan Paul. (Pages cited are from a character recognition reprint by General Books, 2009.)
Sidgwick, A. (1884). Fallacies. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E. T.Lim, G., Perkins, T. and Zhu, W. L. (2002). Open Mind Common Sense: Knowledge Acquisition form the General Public. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ontologies, Databases, and Applications of Semantics for Large Scale Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Smets, P. (1991). Varieties of Ignorance and the Need for Well-Founded Theories. Information Sciences, 57–58, 135–144.
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strong, J. W. (1992). McCormick on Evidence, 4th edition, St Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. [Charles Tilford McCormick (1889–1963) was the original author, but this book has been rewritten by Strong and a team of six co-authors. It is referred to as (Strong, 1992).]
Tang, Y. and Parsons, S. (2006). Argumentation-Based Multi-agent Dialogues for Deliberation, Proceedings of ArgMAS 2005, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4049. Berlin: Springer, 229–244.
Thayer, J. B. (1898). A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Tillers, P. (1989). Webs of Things in the Mind: A New Science of Evidence, Michigan Law Review, 87(6), 1225–1258.
Tillers, P. and Gottfried, J. (2006). United States v. Copeland: A Collateral Attack on the Legal Maxim that Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Is Unquantifiable?, Law, Probability and Risk, 5, 135–157.
Tindale, C. (2010). Reason’s Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Twining, W. (1985). Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Ullman-Margalit, E. (1983). On Presumption, Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 143–163.
Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1983). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.
Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.
Van, Eemeren F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (2004), A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. van Eemeren, F. H. Amsterdam: SicSat, 2002, 13–28.
Van Gelder, T. J. (2007). The Rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 23–42
Van Gijzel, B. and Prakken, H. (2011). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation. Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), 1113–1119. Barcelona,Spain.
van Laar, J. A. (2003). The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation, Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen University, Groningen, the Netherlands.
van Laar, J. A. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance. Argumentation, 27, 201–224.
Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. PhD diss., University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Verheij, B. (1999). Logic, Context and Valid Inference, Legal Knowledge Based Systems. JURIX 1999, eds. van den Herik, H. J. et al. Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Instituut, 109–121.
Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2–3), 167–195.
Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Walton, D. (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Walton, D. (1988). Burden of Proof, Argumentation, 2(2), 233–254.
Walton, D. (1989). Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D. (1992a). Commitment, Types of Dialogue and Fallacies, Informal Logic, 14, 1993, 93–103.
Walton, Douglas N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. (1996). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park: Penn State Press.
Walton, D. (1996a). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.
Walton, D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. (2002). Are Some Modus Ponens Arguments Deductively Invalid?, Informal Logic, 22(1), 19–46.
Walton, D. (2002a). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. (2003). Is there a Burden of Questioning?, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(1), 2003, 1–43.
Walton, D. (2006). How to Make and Defend a Proposal in Deliberation Dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14(3), 177–239.
Walton, D. (2006a). Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme, Logique et Analyse, 49(195), 319–340.
Walton, D. (2006b). Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion, Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745–777.
Walton, D. (2006c). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2007). Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Walton, D. (2007a). Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes, Argumentation, 21(3), 291–316.
Walton, D. (2008). Witness Testimony Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2010). Burden of Proof in Deliberation Dialogs, Proceedings of ArgMAS 2009, ed. McBurney, P. et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6057, Heidelberg, Springer, 1–22.
Walton, D. (2011). A Dialogue System Specification for Explanation, Synthese, 182(3), 349–374.
Walton, D., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Wyner, A., and Cartwright, D. (2010). Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation Dialogue, Arguing Global Governance, ed. Bjola, C. and Kornprobst, M.London: Routledge, 210–230.
Walton, D. and Godden, D. M. (2005). The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes, The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, ed. David Hitchcock, Hamilton, Ontario, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 476–484.
Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2005). Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, ed. Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T.Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers,103–111.
Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D. and Macagno, F. (2006). Common Knowledge in Argumentation, Studies in Communication Sciences, 6 (1), 3–26.
Walton, D., Reed, C. and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. and Sartor, G. (2013) Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes, Argumentation 27(2), 111–142.
Whately, R. (1846). Elements of Rhetoric, 7th edition, ed. Ehninger, D.. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Reprinted 1963.)
Whinery, L. H. (2001). Presumptions and their Effect, Oklahoma Law Review, 54(3), 553–571.
Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof. 2nd edition, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Wigmore, J. H. (1935). A Student’s Textbook of the Law of Evidence. Chicago: The Foundation Press.
Wigmore, J. H. (1940). A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3rd edition, vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Wigmore, J. H. (1981). Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol. 9, revised by Chadbourn, J. H.. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Williams, C. R. (2003). Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation. Sydney Law Review, 9(2), 165–188.
Williams, G. (1977). The Evidential Burden: Some Common Misapprehensions, New Law Journal, 153, 156–158.
Witte, C. L., Kerwin, A., and Witte, M. H. (1991). On the Importance of Ignorance in Medical Practice and Education. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 16(4): 295–298.
Woods, J., Irvine, A., and Walton, D. (2000). Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Wooldridge, M. J., McBurney, P., and Parsons, S. (2005): The Meta-Logic of Arguments. In Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Koenig, S., Kraus, S., Singh, M. P., and Wooldridge, M., eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, 560–567.
