Abstract
In this paper we show that any reasoning process in which conclusions can be both fallible and corrigible can be formalized in terms of two approaches: (i) syntactically, with the use of defeasible reasoning, according to which reasoning consists in the construction and assessment of arguments for and against a given claim, and (ii) semantically, with the use of partial structures, which allow for the representation of less than conclusive information. We are particularly interested in the formalization of scientific reasoning, along the lines traced by Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs. We show how current debates in cosmology could be put into this framework, shedding light on a very controversial topic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arp, H. and more than other 30 signatures (2004). An open letter to the scientific community. New Scientist 2448, May 22 (also in http://cosmologystatement.org/).
Bueno O., de Souza E. (1996) The concept of quasi-truth. Logique et Analyse 153(154): 183–189
Castelvecchi, D. (2004). The growth of inflation. Symmetry (http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/) 01(2)
Coles P., Lucchin F. (1995) Cosmology: The origin and evolution of cosmic structure. John Wiley, NY
da Costa N. C. A., French S. (1989) Pragmatic truth and the logic of induction. British Journal of Philosophy of Science 40: 333–356
da Costa N. C. A., French S. (1990) The model-theoretic approach in the philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science 57: 248–265
da Costa N. C. A., Bueno O., French S. (1998) The logic of pragmatic truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27: 603–620
Delrieux, C. (2001). The role of defeasible reasoning in the modelling of scientific research programmes. Proceedings of the first international workshop on computer modeling of scientific reasoning and applications (pp. 861–869), Las Vegas (Nevada).
Dung P. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 331–357
Earman J., Mosterin J. (1999) A critical look at inflationary cosmology. Philosophy of Science 66: 1–49
French S. (2000) The reasonable effectiveness of mathematics: Partial structures and the application of group theory to physics. Synthese 125: 103–120
García A., Simari G. (2004) Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4: 95–138
Ginsberg, M. (ed.) (1987) Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA
Guth A. (1997) The inflationary universe. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Hempel C. (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. Free Press, NY
Hogan C., Kirshner R., Suntzeff N. (1999) Surveying space-time with supernovae. Scientific American 280(1): 28–33
Khoury J., Ovrut B., Steinhardt P., Turok N. (2001) The Ekpyrotic universe: Colliding branes and the origin of the hot big bang. Physical Review D 64: 123522
Kuhn T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Lakatos I. (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (1970) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Lederman L., Schramm D. (1995) From quarks to the cosmos: Tools of discovery. Scientific American Library, NY
Loui R. (1986) Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 3(3): 100–106
Loui R. (1991) Dialectic, computation and ampliative inference. In: Cummins R., Pollock J. (eds) Philosophy and AI. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Loui R. (1998) Process and policy: Resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14(1): 1–38
Mikenberg I., da Costa N. C. A., Chuaqui R. (1986) Pragmatic truth and approximation to truth. Journal of Symbolic Logic 51: 201–221
Penrose R. (1989) Difficulties with inflationary. Cosmology Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 271: 249–264
Pollock J. (1991) A theory of defeasible reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 6: 33–54
Polya G. (1954) Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Poole, D. (1985). On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. In Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.
Popper K. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London
Prakken H., Vreeswijk G. (2001) Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Schwarzschild B. (2003) WMAP Spacecraft maps the entire cosmic microwave sky with unprecedented precision. Physics Today 56(4): 21–22
Simari G., Loui R. (1992) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53: 127–157
Skalski V., Sukenik M. (1992) Radiation of the cosmic background. Applied Space Science 187: 155–160
Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Suppe F. (1977) The structure of scientific theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL
Thagard P. (1993) Computational Philosophy of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J., Tan, Y., Witteveen, C. (eds) (1992) Non-monotonic reasoning and partial semantics. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, Chichester, U.K.
Vreeswijk G. (1997) Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90: 225–279
Weinberg S. (1992) Dreams of a final theory. Pantheon Books, NY
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tohmé, F., Delrieux, C. & Bueno, O. Defeasible Reasoning + Partial Models: A Formal Framework for the Methodology of Research Programs. Found Sci 16, 47–65 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-010-9200-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-010-9200-0