Defeasible Reasoning + Partial Models: A Formal Framework for the Methodology of Research Programs [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Science 16 (1):47-65 (2011)
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
|Keywords||Partial structures Defeasible reasoning Lakatos Cosmology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Vol. The University of Chicago Press.
Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Imre Lakatos (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.
Carl Hempel (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Fernando Tohmé & Ricardo Crespo (2013). Abduction in Economics: A Conceptual Framework and its Model. Synthese 190 (18):4215-4237.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Walton (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies. Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
G. Aldo Antonelli (2005). Grounded Consequence for Defeasible Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence Cavedon (1998). Default Reasoning as Situated Monotonic Inference. Minds and Machines 8 (4):509-531.
G. Aldo Antonelli (1996). Defeasible Reasoning as a Cognitive Model. In Krister Segerberg (ed.), The Parikh Project. Seven Papers in Honour of Rohit. Uppsala Prints & Preprints in Philosophy
Robert L. Causey (2003). Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
Robert L. Causey (1991). The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
Timothy R. Colburn (1991). Program Verification, Defeasible Reasoning, and Two Views of Computer Science. Minds and Machines 1 (1):97-116.
Solomon Feferman (1995). Definedness. Erkenntnis 43 (3):295 - 320.
Henry Prakken & Marek Sergot (1996). Contrary-to-Duty Obligations. Studia Logica 57 (1):91 - 115.
John F. Horty (2001). Argument Construction and Reinstatement in Logics for Defeasible Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):1-28.
Rachel A. Ankeny (2001). Model Organisms as Models: Understanding the 'Lingua Franca' of the Human Genome Project. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S251-.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads36 ( #109,600 of 1,792,980 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #119,254 of 1,792,980 )
How can I increase my downloads?