In Jean-Yves Béziau & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Around and Beyond the Square of Opposition. Springer (2012)
|Abstract||The square of opposition (as part of a lattice) is used as a natural way to represent different and opposite ways of who makes decisions, and in what way, in/for a group or a society. Majority logic is characterized by multiple logical squares (one for each possible majority), with the “discursive dilemma” as a consequence. Three-valued logics of majority decisions with discursive dilemma undecided, of veto, consensus, and sequential voting are analyzed from the semantic point of view. For instance, the paraconsistent and paracomplete logics M3, M3veto and C3 are described. The distinction of designated and non-designated values is not used, and instead, the consequence relation is defined as a preservation of the minimum truth-value of the implying set of sentences. The consequence and opposition relations of the logics described are compared, and an ordering of the logics with respect to their opposition relations is established.|
|Keywords||collective decision discursive dilema hexagon of opposition majority three-valued logic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gabriella Pigozzi (2006). Belief Merging and the Discursive Dilemma: An Argument-Based Account to Paradoxes of Judgment Aggregation. [REVIEW] Synthese 152 (2):285 - 298.
Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (2012). Privations, Negations and the Square: Basic Elements of a Logic of Privations. In Jean-Yves Beziau & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Around and beyond the Square of Opposition. Birkhäuser-Springer.
Gemma Robles, Francisco Salto & José M. Méndez (forthcoming). Dual Equivalent Two-Valued Under-Determined and Over-Determined Interpretations for Łukasiewicz's 3-Valued Logic Ł3. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-30.
Marc Pauly (2007). Axiomatizing Collective Judgment Sets in a Minimal Logical Language. Synthese 158 (2):233 - 250.
Author unknown, Square of Opposition. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Amit Malhotra (2002). How to Avoid Deviance (in Logic). History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (3):215--36.
Kaarlo Miller (2003). Collective Reasoning and the Discursive Dilemma. Philosophical Explorations 6 (3):182 – 200.
Antonino Drago (2008). The Square of Opposition and the Four Fundamental Choices. Logica Universalis 2 (1):127-141.
Valentin A. Bazhanov (2008). Non-Classical Stems From Classical: N. A. Vasiliev's Approach to Logic and His Reassessment of the Square of Opposition. [REVIEW] Logica Universalis 2 (1):71-76.
Terence Parsons (2008). Things That Are Right with the Traditional Square of Opposition. Logica Universalis 2 (1):3-11.
João Marcos (2009). What is a Non-Truth-Functional Logic? Studia Logica 92 (2):215 - 240.
Robert E. Goodin (2002). The Paradox of Persisting Opposition. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1 (1):109-146.
Stefano Aguzzoli & Agata Ciabattoni (2000). Finiteness in Infinite-Valued Łukasiewicz Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (1):5-29.
A. Avron & B. Konikowska (2008). Rough Sets and 3-Valued Logics. Studia Logica 90 (1):69 - 92.
Added to index2012-05-04
Total downloads13 ( #95,541 of 722,874 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,874 )
How can I increase my downloads?