An examination of the SEP candidate analogical inference rule within pure inductive logic

Within the framework of (Unary) Pure Inductive Logic we investigate four possible formulations of a probabilistic principle of analogy based on a template considered by Paul Bartha in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1] and give some characterizations of the probability functions which satisfy them. In addition we investigate an alternative interpretation of analogical support, also considered by Bartha, based not on the enhancement of probability but on the creation of possibility.     

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。     

A new fuzzy multicriteria evaluation method for group site selection in GIS

Multiple criteria group site selection problems involve a group of individuals evaluating a set of alternative sites on the basis of multiple criteria. This paper presents an application of a new fuzzy algorithm for finding and exploring potential solutions to these problems in a raster Geographical Information System (GIS) environment. Linguistic assessments from decision‐makers are represented as triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN's), which are adjusted for uncertainty in the source data and their relationship to suitability by using an approach based on type‐2 fuzzy sets. The first aggregation of inputs is a compensatory one based on fuzzy multiattribute decision‐making (MADM) theory. An adjusted aggregation then factors in conflicts, risks and uncertainties to enable a variety of compensatory and non‐compensatory outcomes to be generated based on decision‐maker preferences. The algorithm was implemented in ArcView GIS as part of an ongoing collaborative project with Brisbane Airport. This paper outlines the fuzzy algorithm and its use in site selection for a recycling facility on the Brisbane Airport site. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Making Things Happen

We explore some logics of change, focusing on commands to change the world in such a way that certain elementary propositions become true or false. This investigation starts out from the following two simplifying assumptions: (1) the world is a collection of facts (Wittgenstein), and (2), the world can be changed by changing elementary facts (Marx). These assumptions allow us to study the logic of imperatives in the simplest possible setting.     

Henkin Quantifiers and the Definability of Truth

Henkin quantifiers have been introduced in Henkin (1961). Walkoe (1970) studied basic model-theoretical properties of an extension L _* ¹(H) of ordinary first-order languages in which every sentence is a first-order sentence prefixed with a Henkin quantifier. In this paper we consider a generalization of Walkoe's languages: we close L _* ¹(H) with respect to Boolean operations, and obtain the language L ¹(H). At the next level, we consider an extension L _* ²(H) of L ¹(H) in which every sentence is an L ¹(H)-sentence prefixed with a Henkin quantifier. We repeat this construction to infinity. Using the (un)-definability of truth – in – N for these languages, we show that this hierarchy does not collapse. In addition, we compare some of the present results to the ones obtained by Kripke (1975), McGee (1991), and Hintikka (1996).