Inconsistencies and the dynamics of science
Logic and Logical Philosophy 11:129-148 (2003)
Abstract
It is generally agreed upon today that scientific reasoning, like everyday reasoning, proceeds in a dynamic way: inferences derived at some stage in the reasoning process may at a later stage be rejected. This dynamics may be extrinsic or intrinsic. I shall call it extrinsic when previously derived conclusions are rejected on non-logical grounds, and intrinsic when their rejection is based on a purely logical analysisAuthor's Profile
DOI
10.12775/llp.2003.007
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Reasoning about update logic.Jan van Eijck & Fer-Jan de Vries - 1995 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (1):19-45.
Claudius' discovery of the first two laws of thermodynamics. A paradigm of reasoning from inconsistencies.Joke Meheus - 1999 - Philosophica 63 (1):89-117.
A dynamic characterization of the pure logic of relevant implication.Diderik Batens - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):267-280.
Search Regimes and the Industrial Dynamics of Science.Andrea Bonaccorsi - 2008 - Minerva 46 (3):285-315.
Sources of, and exploiting, inconsistency: preliminary report.Don Perlis - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):13-24.
Models and the dynamics of theories.Paulo Abrantes - 2004 - Philósophos - Revista de Filosofia 9 (2).
The Dynamics of Scientific Concepts: The Relevance of Epistemic Aims and Values.Ingo Brigandt - 2012 - In Uljana Feest & Friedrich Steinle (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 75–103.
Reasoning about Update Logic.Jan Van Eijck & Fer-Jan De Vries - 1995 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (1):19 - 45.
First insights on “neuropedagogy of reasoning”.Olivier Houdé - 2007 - Thinking and Reasoning 13 (2):81 – 89.
The Role of Dynamics in Stakeholder Thinking.Duane Windsor - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 96 (S1):79-87.
Formalization and Analysis of Reasoning by Assumption.Tibor Bosse, Catholijn M. Jonker & Jan Treur - 2006 - Cognitive Science 30 (1):147-180.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-11-24
Downloads
10 (#889,868)
6 months
1 (#449,844)
2013-11-24
Downloads
10 (#889,868)
6 months
1 (#449,844)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Concerning Peter Vickers’s Recent Treatment of ‘Paraconsistencitis’.Dunja Šešelja & Christian Straßer - 2014 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 28 (3):325-340.
Scientific Disagreement and Evidential Pluralism: Lessons from the Studies on Hypercholesterolemia.Veli-Pekka Parkkinen, Federica Russo & Christian Wallmann - 2017 - Humana Mente 10 (32):75-116.
Designing visual languages for description logics.Brian R. Gaines - 2009 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18 (2):217-250.
References found in this work
Inconsistency-Adaptive Logics.Diderik Batens - 1999 - In Logic at Work. Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa. Springer. pp. 445-472.
How to be realistic about inconsistency in science.Bryson Brown - 1990 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (2):281-294.
Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study part 1: The flat case.Salem Benferhat, Didier Dubois & Henri Prade - 1997 - Studia Logica 58 (1):17-45.
Inconsistency and scientific reasoning.Joel M. Smith - 1988 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 19 (4):429-445.
Inconsistency and scientific reasoning.Joel M. Smith - 1988 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 19 (4):429-445.
