“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge.”

Abstract
Logicians have long recognized a distinction between categorical, conditional and hypothetical reasoning. Roughly speaking, categorical reasoning exhibits the form "? since ?". Conditional reasoning exhibits the form "If ? then ?". Hypothetical reasoning exhibits the form ?Since ?, it is reasonable to suppose (conjecture, hypothesize) that ?¬. Categorical and hypothetical reasoning is a matter of drawing consequences. Conditional reasoning is a matter of spotting consequences, not drawing them. Categorical reasoning maps belief to belief. Conditional reasoning engenders implicational belief. Hypothetical reasoning maps belief to supposition (conjecture, hypothesis). Since the notion of belief is a constituent of reasoning in all these forms, it is only natural to suppose that it will have a role to play in the differentiation of good and bad reasoning. A logic of reasoning should have something to say about this. In the account developed her, belief has a central importance. In chapter two, I made favourable mention of the Can Do Principle. This is the principle that bids us, to the extent possible, to solve our theoretical problems in frameworks that are up and running and successful, using methods that are tried and true. I said that, provided it does not overreach itself, Can Do gives to the theorist methodological guidance of the first importance. For the better part of twenty-five years, belief-change theories have been a prominent part of the research programmes of AI[1] and formal epistemology.[2] If reasoning comprehends belief-change, why wouldn’t a theory of reasoning be an adaptation of a theory of belief-change? Wouldn’t a theory of belief-change be the natural place to look? Isn’t this what Can Do would suggest? Similarly, belief has been the focus of attention of modal logicians for nearly fifty years. Would a belief logic also be a natural place for a logic of reasoning to seek instruction? Wouldn’t Can Do also direct us here? This is not, in fact, the course that I am going to take..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,613
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
When Is Genetic Reasoning Not Fallacious?Kevin C. Klement - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (4):383-400.
Belief Revision and Uncertain Reasoning.Guy Politzer & Laure Carles - 2001 - Thinking and Reasoning 7 (3):217 – 234.
Belief Revision, Non-Monotonic Reasoning, and the Ramsey Test.Charles B. Cross - 1990 - In Kyburg Henry E., Loui Ronald P. & Carlson Greg N. (eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 223--244.
Why Not LF for False Belief Reasoning?Jill G. de Villiers & Peter A. de Villiers - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):682-683.
Normative Practical Reasoning: John Broome.John Broome - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175–193.
Normative Practical Reasoning.Christian Piller - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175 - 216.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-04-13

Total downloads

41 ( #126,280 of 2,168,924 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #61,130 of 2,168,924 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums