Abstract
In this article we consider argumentation as an epistemic process performed
by an agent to extend and revise her beliefs and gain knowledge, according to
the information provided by the environment. Such a process can also generate
the suspension of the claim under evaluation. How can we account for such a
suspension phenomenon in argumentation process? We propose: (1) to distinguish
two kinds of suspensions – critical suspension and non-critical suspension
– in epistemic change processes; (2) to introduce a Paraconsistent Weak Kleene
logic (PWK) based belief revision theory which makes use of the notion of topic
to distinguish the two kinds of suspensions previously mentioned, and (3) to
develop a PWK-style argumentation framework and its expansion. By doing
that, we can distinguish two kinds of suspensions in an epistemic process by
virtue of the notion of topic.