A Brief Comparison Of Pollock's Defeasible Reasoning And Ranking Functions |
| |
Authors: | Spohn Wolfgang |
| |
Institution: | (1) Fachbereich Philosophie, Universität Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany |
| |
Abstract: | 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 of admissible rules. Conversely, I explain how quite a number of achievements of Pollock's account can be adequately duplicated within ranking theory. The main purpose of the paper, though, is not to settle a dispute with formal epistemology, but rather to emphasize the importance of formal methods to the whole of epistemology. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|