A family of Gödel hybrid logics

In this paper, we define a family of fuzzy hybrid logics that are based on Gödel logic. It is composed of two infinite-valued versions called ${\mathsf{GH}}_{\infty }$ and ${\mathsf{WGH}}_{\infty }$, and a sequence of finitary valued versions ${({\mathsf{GH}}_n)}_{0<n<\infty }$. We define decision procedures for both ${\mathsf{WGH}}_{\infty }$ and ${({\mathsf{GH}}_n)}_{0<n<\infty }$ that are based on particular sequents and on a set of proof rules dealing with such sequents. As these rules are strongly invertible the procedures naturally allow one to generate countermodels. Therefore we prove the decidability and the finite model property for these logics. Finally, from the decision procedure of ${\mathsf{WGH}}_{\infty }$, we design a sound and complete sequent calculus for this logic.     

Lost in dissociation: The main paradigms in unconscious cognition

Contemporary studies in unconscious cognition are essentially founded on dissociation, i.e., on how it dissociates with respect to conscious mental processes and representations. This is claimed to be in so many and diverse ways that one is often lost in dissociation. In order to reduce this state of confusion we here carry out two major tasks: based on the central distinction between cognitive processes and representations, we identify and isolate the main dissociation paradigms; we then critically analyze their key tenets and reported findings.     

Is it always fallacious to derive values from facts?

Since the time of David Hume, many philosophers have held that there is a logical Is/Ought gap. According to the doctrine of the Is/Ought gap, there are no valid (i.e., non-fallacious) arguments from purely factual premises about whatis the case to moral or normative conclusions about whatought to be. Occasionally, this doctrine has been challenged, but frequently it has been accepted without argumentation. Charles Pigden has recently argued for a logical Is/Ought gap on the grounds of the conservativeness of logic. I offer a counter-example which shows that Pigden's argument is unsound and that there need be no logical gap between Is-premises and an Ought-conclusion. My counter-example is an argument which is logically valid, has only Is-premises and an Ought-conclusion, and does not purport to violate the conservativeness of logic. Moreover, my argument does not rely, as other alleged counter-examples do, on controversial assumptions from Aristotelian biology about natures or ends, or about institutions such as promise-making.     

The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning

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 this article is to show that debate is the most efficient procedure to argue in the presence of limited resources. To do so, there is first some general theory on defeasible argumentation, which is followed by an introduction to the problem of dialectical search. The problem of dialectical search is (or at least, should be) the essential issue in every theory on argumentation, and emerges at every occasion that involves adjudication on competing arguments. Starting with an example, it is explained that dialectical search can be best scheduled according to classical debating techniques, that work along well-tried methods. These methods (which include various forms of curtailment, interruption, and interpretation) have proven their value in keeping debating efforts within reasonable bounds. How they apply in a theory of formal argument, will be shown in this article.This research was made possible by SION, and is financed by NWO under contract number 612-316-019. Part of this research has been conducted at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This article contains fragments of Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the author's dissertation. Studies in Defeasible Argumentation (1993).     

Rational Illogicality

Many accounts of structural rationality give a special role to logic. This paper reviews the problem case of clear-eyed logical uncertainty. An account of rational norms on belief that does not give a special role to logic is developed: doxastic probabilism.     

From reasonable preferences,via argumentation,to logic

This article demonstrates that typical restrictions which are imposed in dialogical logic in order to recover first-order logical consequence from a fragment of natural language argumentation are also forthcoming from preference profiles of boundedly rational players, provided that these players instantiate a specific player type and compute partial strategies. We present two structural rules, which are formulated similarly to closure rules for tableaux proofs that restrict players' strategies to a mapping between games in extensive forms (i.e., game trees) and proof trees. Both rules are motivated from players' preferences and limitations; they can therefore be viewed as being player-self-imposable. First-order logical consequence is thus shown to result from playing a specific type of argumentation game. The alignment of such games with the normative model of the Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is positively evaluated. But explicit rules to guarantee that the argumentation game instantiates first-order logical consequence have now become gratuitous, since their normative content arises directly from players' preferences and limitations. A similar naturalization for non-classical logics is discussed.     

Braine心理逻辑理论述评

该文对Braine提出的在推理心理学研究领域占居重要地位的“心理逻辑理论”做了综合述评。“心理逻辑理论”主要包括三方面内容:构成“心理逻辑理论”基础的一组推理规则图式、将推理规则图式应用于推理过程的推理方案、实际应用意义。Braine认为他和他的同事于1984年设计并实施的以“自然推理系统”所含各推理规则为实验材料的实验结果支持该理论的基本观点。     

时间压力和相似性对类比推理直觉加工的影响

通过两个实验探讨了时间压力对类比推理的直觉加工的影响。实验1采用三因素混合实验设计,以48名大学生为被试,在不同时间压力条件下对不同相似性言语类比推理题进行喜好度判断和类比推理逻辑判断。实验2是在实验1的基础上用图形类比推理题代替语义类比推理题,以56名大学生为被试。结果发现:(1)时间压力下,对跨领域言语类比推理的直觉加工效应显著高于逻辑加工效应;(2)时间压力下,低难度图形类比推理题的直觉加工效应显著高于逻辑加工效应。无时间压力条件下,图形类比推理的逻辑加工效应优势明显;(3)时间压力对类比推理的直觉加工和逻辑加工均有影响