Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification

Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty at the object-language level. In spite of its expressive power, an important limitation in P-DeLP is that imprecise, fuzzy information cannot be expressed in the object language. One interesting alternative for solving this limitation is the use of PGL+, a possibilistic logic over Gödel logic extended with fuzzy constants. Fuzzy constants in PGL+ allow expressing disjunctive information about the unknown value of a variable, in the sense of a magnitude, modelled as a (unary) predicate. The aim of this article is twofold: firstly, we formalize DePGL+, a possibilistic defeasible logic programming language that extends P-DeLP through the use of PGL+ in order to incorporate fuzzy constants and a fuzzy unification mechanism for them. Secondly, we propose a way to handle conflicting arguments in the context of the extended framework.

Un estudi de les argumentacions d’estudiants anglesos i catalans en activitats de resolució de problemes no formals en ciències i de les estratègies didàctiques dels professors que afavoreixen l’argumentació a les classes

Una de les contribucions de la recerca sobre concepcions prèvies dels estudiants en ciències durant els darrers 25 anys ha estat mostrar la influència del context sociocultural dels nois i noies en les idees i concepcions que desenvolupen i mantenen des de la seva infància. Hi ha l’acord que algunes diferències en les concepcions poden dependre de la cultura social en la qual s’integren. Alguns investigadors també pensen que els esquemes argumentatius també poden ser influenciats per la cultura de les comunitats. Els contextos Català i Anglès semblen similars, ambdós formen part del context cultural de les societats desenvolupades; per tant, podem pensar que els esquemes argumentatius que els estudiants apliquen, poden tenir moltes similituds, però també importants diferències. Les dades analitzades provenen de les respostes escrites dels estudiants individuals i de les transcripcions de 8 grups de discussió sobre quatre tasques. L’anàlisi es fa a tres nivells: 1)comparació del nombre d’arguments entre tasques i entre països, 2) qualitativa i descriptiva comparació entre tipus d’esquemes argumentatius per tasques i per països i 3) explicació de tipus d’esquemes argumentatius que es donen molt, i identificació d’estructures argumentatives complexes que lliguen diversos esquemes en un argument més gran i que poden caracteritzar l’argumentació d’alguns grups (aplicant Toulmin) i que poden ser indicadors d’aspectes cooperatius i de canvis de punts de vista en les discussions. Els resultants ens indiquen que encara que els estudiants Catalans dediquen més temps a les discussions, la ratio nombre d’esquemes per unitat de temps és similar als dos països. S’han trobar algunes diferències entre tipus d'esquemes per països i per tasques, també que molts arguments es basen en valors i idees preconcebudes. S’han pogut identificar també algunes estructures argumentatives complexes no gaire comunes.

Banning Obsolete Weapons or Reshaping Perceptions of Military Utility: Discursive Dynamics in Weapons Prohibitions

The paper focuses on the argumentative process through which new international norms prohibiting the use of weapons causing severe civilian harm emerge. It examines the debate surrounding the use and usefulness of landmines and cluster munitions and traces the process through which NGOs change conceptions of military utility and effectiveness of certain weapons by highlighting their humanitarian problems and questioning their military value. By challenging military thinking on these issues, NGOs redefine the terms of the debate – from a commonplace practice, the use of such weapons becomes controversial and military decisions need to be justified. The argument-counterargument dynamic shifts the burden of proof of the necessity and safety of the weapons to the users. The process witnesses the ability of NGOs to influence debates on military issues despite their disadvantaged position in hard security issue areas. It also challenges realist assumptions that only weapons that are obsolete or low-cost force equalizers for weak actors can be banned. To the contrary, the paper shows that in the case of landmines and cluster munitions, defining the military (in)effectiveness of the weapons is part and parcel of the struggle for their prohibition.

Les normes processals del títol tercer (la família), del llibre II del projecte de codi civil de Catalunya

El treball que es presenta té per a objecte l’anàlisi de les principals disposicions de caràcter processal que s’incorporen al Projecte de llei del Llibre II del Codi Civil de Catalunya. S’hi desenvolupa el règim jurídic que s’hi proposa però també s’ha tractat d’identificar les possibles llacunes existents, així com les contradiccions o defectes. Amb la finalitat de contribuir a millorar la qualitat del Projecte s’han elaborat una sèrie d’esmenes que recullen les propostes realitzades en el treball.

Revealing the dark side of traditional democracies in plurinational societies. The case of Catalonia and the Spanish “Estado de las Autonomías”

In this article, I firstly offer a synthesis of a brief set of analytical elements of the theory of democracy and federalism established in the recent debate which identify a number of flaws in the normative and institutional bases of plurinational democracies. It is necessary to overcome these flaws in order to achieve a true political and constitutional recognition and accommodation of the national pluralism of this kind of liberal democracies (section 1). Secondly, we will focus on the Spanish case of the “Estado de las Autonomías” taking into account the recent reform of the Catalan constitutional law (Estatut d’autonomia 2006) (section 2). A final section makes a number of concluding remarks relating the previously highlighted elements of the theory of democracy and federalism with the analysis of the Catalan case (section 3).

Media, investors and bubbles

We analysed the specific case of how information in the financial press influences economic bubbles. We found considerable flaws in the information market due to several factors: demand, the predominance of what are termed “irrational investors” (herding), and supply, which has the problem that the sources of information are biasedand feeds. A financial bubble is a deviation between real value of a financial asset and its persistent market price in time, which also has a speculative origin fed back by the illusion of the owners of these financial values, who will take benefits because of the future prices, which must be higher than the previous ones. The economical information in the media is submitting three problems. First of all, it is information generated by companies. In second place, the information circuit is fed back. A problem of informative independence becomes created, particularly serious in the case of the banks, which are very were as creditors. And in a third place, some informative biases are manifested for the companies of regulated sectors which are starring the economical information in the media.

Formalizing defeasible argumentation using a labeled deductive system

In the last years there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI, logic programming and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. In the last decade, defeasible argumentation has proven to be a confluence point for many approaches to formalizing commonsense reasoning. Different formalisms have been developed, many of them sharing common features. This paper presents a formalization of an LDS for defensible argumentation, in which the main issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured within a unified logical framework. The proposed framework is defined in two stages. First, defeasible inference will be formalized by characterizing an argumentative LDS. That system will be then extended in order to capture conflict among arguments using a dialectical approach. We also present some logical properties emerging from the proposed framework, discussing also its semantical characterization.

A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: formalization and logical properties

In the last decade defeasible argumentation frameworks have evolved to become a sound setting to formalize commonsense, qualitative reasoning. The logic programming paradigm has shown to be particularly useful for developing different argument-based frameworks on the basis of different variants of logic programming which incorporate defeasible rules. Most of such frameworks, however, are unable to deal with explicit uncertainty, nor with vague knowledge, as defeasibility is directly encoded in the object language. This paper presents Possibilistic Logic Programming (P-DeLP), a new logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating as well the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty. Such features are formalized on the basis of PGL, a possibilistic logic based on G¨odel fuzzy logic. One of the applications of P-DeLP is providing an intelligent agent with non-monotonic, argumentative inference capabilities. In this paper we also provide a better understanding of such capabilities by defining two non-monotonic operators which model the expansion of a given program P by adding new weighed facts associated with argument conclusions and warranted literals, respectively. Different logical properties for the proposed operators are studied

Braving the Storm: How Are Global Biofuel Policies Sustained Despite Being Contested? An Analysis of the Biofuel Discourses of the EU, Brazil and Mozambique

Considered as a remedy to multiple problems that our world is facing, biofuels are nowadays promoted on a global scale. Despite this globalised approach, however, biofuels are heavily contested. Not only the social implications of biofuels are disputed and uncertain, particularly in countries of the global South, but also their environmental and economic rationales. Given these huge controversies, policies promoting biofuels would seem difficult to maintain. Yet, support for them has been surprisingly well established on the political agendas. With the aim of understanding this puzzle, this study asks how the dominant approach to biofuels has been sustained on a global level. In order to answer this question, the meanings and assumptions in biofuel discourses are explored through the lens of Maarten Hajer’s “argumentative” discourse analysis. Based on the existence of a “partnership for sustainable bioenergy” between the EU, Brazil and Mozambique, the study takes these three locations as case studies. The analysis reveals that various discursive strategies, including a particular problem construction and the use of two main story-lines, have played an important role in ensuring the permanence of the global approach to biofuels. Moreover, while the discourse of critics against biofuels demonstrates that there is room for contestation, the analysis finds that the opponents’ discourse largely fails to target the most salient justification for biofuels. A more effective strategy for critics would therefore be to also question the problem constructions underpinning this main justification in the global discourse.