Results for 'defeasible reasoning'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  58
    Defeasible Reasoning + Partial Models: A Formal Framework for the Methodology of Research Programs. [REVIEW]Fernando Tohmé, Claudio Delrieux & Otávio Bueno - 2011 - Foundations of Science 16 (1):47-65.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2.  31
    Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning.Robert L. Causey - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
    This article begins with an introduction to defeasible (nonmonotonic) reasoning and a brief description of a computer program, EVID, which can perform such reasoning. I then explain, and illustrate with examples, how this program can be applied in computational representations of ordinary dialogic argumentation. The program represents the beliefs and doubts of the dialoguers, and uses these propositional attitudes, which can include commonsense defeasible inference rules, to infer various changing conclusions as a dialogue progresses. It is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  30
    The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning.Robert L. Causey - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
    This article argues that: (i) Defeasible reasoning is the use of distinctive procedures for belief revision when new evidence or new authoritative judgment is interpolated into a system of beliefs about an application domain. (ii) These procedures can be explicated and implemented using standard higher-order logic combined with epistemic assumptions about the system of beliefs. The procedures mentioned in (i) depend on the explication in (ii), which is largely described in terms of a Prolog program, EVID, which implements (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  26
    Defeasible Reasoning and Logic Programming.Timothy R. Colburn - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):417-436.
    The general conditions of epistemic defeat are naturally represented through the interplay of two distinct kinds of entailment, deductive and defeasible. Many of the current approaches to modeling defeasible reasoning seek to define defeasible entailment via model-theoretic notions like truth and satisfiability, which, I argue, fails to capture this fundamental distinction between truthpreserving and justification-preserving entailments. I present an alternative account of defeasible entailment and show how logic programming offers a paradigm in which the distinction (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Perspectives in the Interpretation of Defeasible Reasoning.Giacomo Turbanti - 2014 - The Logica Yearbook 2013 2013:239-254.
    Non-monotonicity in logic is a symptom that may have many causes. In the formalisation of defeasible reasoning, an epistemic diagnosis has largely prevailed according to which some inferences are non-monotonic because they are provisionally drawn in the absence of relevant or complete information. The Gabbay-Makinson rules for cumulative consequence relations are a paradigmatic example of this epistemic approach. In this paper a different approach to defeasible reasoning is introduced, based on the idea of inferential perspectives. According (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  43
    Program Verification, Defeasible Reasoning, and Two Views of Computer Science.Timothy R. Colburn - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (1):97-116.
    In this paper I attempt to cast the current program verification debate within a more general perspective on the methodologies and goals of computer science. I show, first, how any method involved in demonstrating the correctness of a physically executing computer program, whether by testing or formal verification, involves reasoning that is defeasible in nature. Then, through a delineation of the senses in which programs can be run as tests, I show that the activities of testing and formal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument: A Reply to Oppy.Robert C. Koons - 2001 - Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
    This is a reply to a paper by Graham Oppy in the July, 1999 issue of this journal, “Koons’ Cosmological Argument.” Recent work in defeasible or nonmonotonic logic means that the cosmological argument can be cast in such a way that it does not presuppose that every contingent situation, without exception, has a cause. Instead, the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic, who must produce positive reasons for thinking that the cosmos is an exception to the (...) law of causality. I show how Oppy’s critique can be turned into a plausible rebuttal of my argument. However, this rebuttal can be set aside when the original argument is supplemented by a plausible account of the nature of causal priority. Several independent lines of argument in support of this account are outlined. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  8.  41
    Heuristics, Justification, and Defeasible Reasoning.Timothy R. Colburn - 1995 - Minds and Machines 5 (4):467-487.
    Heuristics can be regarded as justifying the actions and beliefs of problem-solving agents. I use an analysis of heuristics to argue that a symbiotic relationship exists between traditional epistemology and contemporary artificial intelligence. On one hand, the study of models of problem-solving agents usingquantitative heuristics, for example computer programs, can reveal insight into the understanding of human patterns of epistemic justification by evaluating these models'' performance against human problem-solving. On the other hand,qualitative heuristics embody the justifying ability of defeasible (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  24
    Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence.Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
    Modeling legal argumentation is one of the most important research in AI and Law, and a lot of models have been proposed. However, most research has not treated value judgement and debate. In this paper, we introduce a legal reasoning model which covers various aspects of legalreasoning such as making argument, selecting argument and debate.Furthermore, we present how criminal law is described and reasoned inthis model.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  43
    The Reasoning View and Defeasible Practical Reasoning.Samuel Asarnow - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (3):614-636.
    According to the Reasoning View about normative reasons, facts about normative reasons for action can be understood in terms of facts about the norms of practical reasoning. I argue that this view is subject to an overlooked class of counterexamples, familiar from debates about Subjectivist theories of normative reasons. Strikingly, the standard strategy Subjectivists have used to respond to this problem cannot be adapted to the Reasoning View. I think there is a solution to this problem, however. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11.  18
    The Computational Value of Debate in Defeasible Reasoning.Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (2):305-342.
    Defeasible reasoning is concerned with the logics of non-deductive argument. As is described in the literature, the study of this type of reasoning is considerably more involved than the study of deductive argument, even so that, in realistic applications, there is often a lack of resources to perform an exhaustive analysis. It follows that, in a theory of defeasible reasoning, the order and direction in which arguments are developed, i.e. theprocedure, is important. The aim of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12.  21
    Negativity Bias in Defeasible Reasoning.Lupita Estefania Gazzo Castañeda, Bruno Richter & Markus Knauff - 2016 - Thinking and Reasoning 22 (2):209-220.
    ABSTRACTIn defeasible reasoning, initially drawn conclusions can be withdrawn in light of new information. In this paper, we examine how the conclusions drawn from conditionals describing positive or negative situations can be defeated by subsequent negative or positive information, respectively. Participants were confronted with conditionals of the form “If [situation], then I am happy/sad” which were either followed by no additional information or by additional information describing situations of the same or the opposite valence. The participant's task was (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  73
    Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
    This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  14. A Recursive Semantics for Defeasible Reasoning.John Pollock - unknown
    One of the most striking characteristics of human beings is their ability to function successfully in complex environments about which they know very little. In light of our pervasive ignorance, we cannot get around in the world just reasoning deductively from our prior beliefs together with new perceptual input. As our conclusions are not guaranteed to be true, we must countenance the possibility that new information will lead us to change our minds, withdrawing previously adopted beliefs. In this sense, (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  15.  7
    A Brief Comparison Of Pollock's Defeasible Reasoning And Ranking Functions.Wolfgang Spohn - 2002 - Synthese 131 (1):39-56.
    In this paper two theories of defeasible reasoning, Pollock's account and my theory of ranking functions, are compared, on a strategic level, since a strictly formal comparison would have been unfeasible. A brief summary of the accounts shows their basic difference: Pollock's is a strictly computational one, whereas ranking functions provide a regulative theory. Consequently, I argue that Pollock's theory is normatively defective, unable to provide a theoretical justification for its basic inference rules and thus an independent notion (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  16. A Brief Comparison of Pollock's Defeasible Reasoning and Ranking Functions.Wolfgang Spohn - 2002 - Synthese 131 (1):39-56.
    In this paper two theories of defeasible reasoning, Pollock's account and my theory of ranking functions, are compared, on a strategic level, since a strictly formal comparison would have been unfeasible. A brief summary of the accounts shows their basic difference: Pollock's is a strictly computational one, whereas ranking functions provide a regulative theory. Consequently, I argue that Pollock's theory is normatively defective, unable to provide a theoretical justification for its basic inference rules and thus an independent notion (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17.  64
    Pollock's Theory of Defeasible Reasoning.Jonathan Weisberg - 2010
    An introduction to the motivations and mechanics of John Pollock's theory of defeasible reasoning, from a lecture at the Northern Institute of Philosophy in 2010.
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  28
    Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol 3.D. Gabbay & P. Smets (eds.) - 1998 - Kluwer Academic.
    HANDBOOK OF DEFEASIBLE REASONING AND UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS EDITORS: DOV M. ... and A. Hunter Volume 3: Belief Change Edited by D. Dubois and H. Prade HANDBOOK OF DEFEASIBLE REASONING AND ...
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. Oscar: An Agent Architecture Based on Defeasible Reasoning.John Pollock - manuscript
    Proceedings of the 2008 AAAI Spring Symposium on Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents. “OSCAR is a fully implemented architecture for a cognitive agent, based largely on the author’s work in philosophy concerning epistemology and practical cognition. The seminal idea is that a generally intelligent agent must be able to function in an environment in which it is ignorant of most matters of fact. The architecture incorporates a general-purpose defeasible reasoner, built on top of an efficient natural deduction reasoner for (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Defeasible Reasoning About Utilities and Decision Trees.R. Loui - 1990 - In Kyburg Henry E., Loui Ronald P. & Carlson Greg N. (eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 345--359.
  21.  63
    Argument Construction and Reinstatement in Logics for Defeasible Reasoning.John F. Horty - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):1-28.
    This paper points out some problems with two recent logical systems – one due to Prakken and Sartor, the other due to Kowalski and Toni – designedfor the representation of defeasible arguments in general, but with a specialemphasis on legal reasoning.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  22. Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.
    There was a long tradition in philosophy according to which good reasoning had to be deductively valid. However, that tradition began to be questioned in the 1960’s, and is now thoroughly discredited. What caused its downfall was the recognition that many familiar kinds of reasoning are not deductively valid, but clearly confer justification on their conclusions. Here are some simple examples.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   180 citations  
  23. ``Defeasible Reasoning with Variable Degrees of Justification&Quot.John Pollock - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence 133:233-282.
    The question addressed in this paper is how the degree of justification of a belief is determined. A conclusion may be supported by several different arguments, the arguments typically being defeasible, and there may also be arguments of varying strengths for defeaters for some of the supporting arguments. What is sought is a way of computing the “on sum” degree of justification of a conclusion in terms of the degrees of justification of all relevant premises and the strengths of (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  24. Bootstrapping, Defeasible Reasoning, and a Priori Justification.Stewart Cohen - 2010 - Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):141-159.
  25.  4
    A Note on a Description Logic of Concept and Role Typicality for Defeasible Reasoning Over Ontologies.Ivan Varzinczak - 2018 - Logica Universalis 12 (3-4):297-325.
    In this work, we propose a meaningful extension of description logics for non-monotonic reasoning. We introduce \, a logic allowing for the representation of and reasoning about both typical class-membership and typical instances of a relation. We propose a preferential semantics for \ in terms of partially-ordered DL interpretations which intuitively captures the notions of typicality we are interested in. We define a tableau-based algorithm for checking \ knowledge-base consistency that always terminates and we show that it is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  8
    Formal Nonmonotonic Theories and Properties of Human Defeasible Reasoning.Marco Ragni, Christian Eichhorn, Tanja Bock, Gabriele Kern-Isberner & Alice Ping Ping Tse - 2017 - Minds and Machines 27 (1):79-117.
    The knowledge representation and reasoning of both humans and artificial systems often involves conditionals. A conditional connects a consequence which holds given a precondition. It can be easily recognized in natural languages with certain key words, like “if” in English. A vast amount of literature in both fields, both artificial intelligence and psychology, deals with the questions of how such conditionals can be best represented and how these conditionals can model human reasoning. On the other hand, findings in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27.  66
    Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument.Robert C. Koons - 2001 - Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
    This is a reply to a paper by Graham Oppy in the July, 1999 issue of this journal, “Koons’ Cosmological Argument.” Recent work in defeasible or nonmonotonic logic means that the cosmological argument can be cast in such a way that it does not presuppose that every contingent situation, without exception, has a cause. Instead, the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic, who must produce positive reasons for thinking that the cosmos is an exception to the (...) law of causality. I show how Oppy’s critique can be turned into a plausible rebuttal of my argument. However, this rebuttal can be set aside when the original argument is supplemented by a plausible account of the nature of causal priority. Several independent lines of argument in support of this account are outlined. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  28. Defeasible Reasoning as a Cognitive Model.G. Aldo Antonelli - 1996 - In Krister Segerberg (ed.), The Parikh Project. Seven Papers in Honour of Rohit. Uppsala Prints & Preprints in Philosophy.
    One of the most important developments over the last twenty years both in logic and in Artificial Intelligence is the emergence of so-called non-monotonic logics. These logics were initially developed by McCarthy [10], McDermott & Doyle [13], and Reiter [17]. Part of the original motivation was to provide a formal framework within which to model cognitive phenomena such as defeasible inference and defeasible knowledge representation, i.e., to provide a formal account of the fact that reasoners can reach conclusions (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  13
    Defeasible Normative Reasoning.Wolfgang Spohn - 2019 - Synthese:1-38.
    The paper is motivated by the need of accounting for the practical syllogism as a piece of defeasible reasoning. To meet the need, the paper first refers to ranking theory as an account of defeasible descriptive reasoning. It then argues that two kinds of ought need to be distinguished, purely normative and fact-regarding obligations. It continues arguing that both kinds of ought can be iteratively revised and should hence be represented by ranking functions, too, just as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  30.  47
    Defeasible Reasoning.Robert C. Koons - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  31. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Henry Prakken - 2000 - Studia Logica 64 (1):143-146.
  32.  39
    Defeasible Reasoning and Degrees of Justification.John L. Pollock † - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (1):7-22.
  33. Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning.Francesca Toni - 2008 - In Satoh (ed.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 390--402.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34.  33
    Defeasible Reasoning and Degrees of Justification.Pollock † & L. John - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (1):7-22.
  35.  58
    Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Robert Alexy - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
  36.  21
    Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning[REVIEW]Jan Albert van Laar - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):337-344.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  32
    Conductive Argument, An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning.Fabio Paglieri - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (3):438-461.
    Edited by J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson King’s College London, UK: College Publications, 2011. Pp. vii, 1-299. Softcover. ISBN: 978-1-84890-030-1. US$ ~20.
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  29
    J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (Eds): Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning[REVIEW]Jan Albert Laar - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):337-344.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  16
    Prakken Henry. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Law and Philosophy Library, Vol. 32. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1997, Xiii + 314 Pp. [REVIEW]R. P. Loui - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (4):1840-1841.
  40.  11
    Reviews of Michael Dummett, Frege and Other Philosophers ; W.Balzer and C.U.Moulines , Structuralist Theory of Science:Focal Issues, New Results , ISBN 3-11-014075-6; Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modeling Legal Argument a Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , J.Srzednicki and Z.Stachniak Lesniewski's Systems.Protothetic.Nijhoff International Philosophy Series, 54 , ISBN 0-7923-4504-5. [REVIEW]Matthias Schirn, N. Da Costa, O. Bueno, Kenneth Ferguson & Krystyna Misiuna - 1998 - History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (4):267-277.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41.  35
    Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. [REVIEW]L. M. M. Royakkers - 2000 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):379-387.
  42.  29
    Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Bart Verheij - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
  43.  19
    Review of H. Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law[REVIEW]R. P. Loui - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (4):1840-1841.
  44.  8
    The Role or Negation in Nonmonotonio Loom and Defeasible Reasoning.Gerhard Schurz - 1996 - In H. Wansing (ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus. W. De Gruyter. pp. 7--197.
  45.  5
    Abductive Inference in Defeasible Reasoning: A Model for Research Programmes.Claudio Delrieux - 2004 - Journal of Applied Logic 2 (4):409-437.
  46. Conductive Argument: A New Type of Defeasible Reasoning.John Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson (eds.) - 2011 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  31
    Reasoning About Knowledge Using Defeasible Logic.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Argument and Computation 2 (2-3):131 - 155.
    In this paper, the Carneades argumentation system is extended to represent a procedural view of inquiry in which evidence is marshalled to support or defeat claims to knowledge. The model is a sequence of moves in a collaborative group inquiry in which parties take turns making assertions about what is known or not known, putting forward evidence to support them, and subjecting these moves to criticisms. It is shown how this model of evaluating evidence in an inquiry is based on (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48.  33
    Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning.Henry Prakken - 1996 - Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
    This paper compares two ways of formalising defeasible deontic reasoning, both based on the view that the issues of conflicting obligations and moral dilemmas should be dealt with from the perspective of nonmonotonic reasoning. The first way is developing a special nonmonotonic logic for deontic statements. This method turns out to have some limitations, for which reason another approach is recommended, viz. combining an already existing nonmonotonic logic with a deontic logic. As an example of this method (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  49.  56
    Reasoning with Defeasible Principles.Marvin Belzer - 1986 - Synthese 66 (1):135 - 158.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50.  12
    Modelling Def+Easible Reasoning by Means of Adaptive Logic Games.Peter Verdée - 2012 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 20 (2):417-437.
    In this article, I present a dynamic logic game for defeasible reasoning. I argue that, as far as defeasible reasoning is concerned, one should distinguish between practical and ideal rationality. Starting from the adaptive logic framework, I formalize both rationality notions by means of logic games. The presented adaptive logic games are based on (i) standard logic games on the one hand and (ii) dynamic proof procedures for adaptive logic on the other hand. The games are (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 1000