. In this paper, adaptive logics are studied from the viewpoint of universal logic (in the sense of the study of common structures of logics). The common structure of a large set of adaptive logics is described. It is shown that this structure determines the proof theory as well as the semantics of the adaptive logics, and moreover that most properties of the logics can be proved by relying solely on the structure, viz. without invoking any specific properties of the (...) logics themselves. (shrink)
It is shown that the consequence relations deﬁned from theRescher-Manor Mechanism are all inconsistency-adaptive logics combined with a speciﬁc interpretation schema for the premises. Each of the adaptive logics isobtained by applying a suitable adaptive strategy to the paraconsistent logicCLuN.This result provides all those consequence relations with a proof theory and with a static semantics.
In an adaptive logic APL, based on a (monotonic) non-standardlogic PL the consequences of can be defined in terms ofa selection of the PL-models of . An important property ofthe adaptive logics ACLuN1, ACLuN2, ACLuNs1, andACLuNs2 logics is proved: whenever a model is not selected, this isjustified in terms of a selected model (Strong Reassurance). Theproperty fails for Priest's LP m because its way of measuring thedegree of abnormality of a model is incoherent – correcting thisdelivers the property.
This paper answers the philosophical contentions defended in Horsten and Welch . It contains a description of the standard format of adaptive logics, analyses the notion of dynamic proof required by those logics, discusses the means to turn such proofs into demonstrations, and argues that, notwithstanding their formal complexity, adaptive logics are important because they explicate an abundance of reasoning forms that occur frequently, both in scientific contexts and in common sense contexts.
This paper describes the adaptive logic of compatibility and its dynamic proof theory. The results derive from insights in inconsistency-adaptive logic, but are themselves very simple and philosophically unobjectionable. In the absence of a positive test, dynamic proof theories lead, in the long run, to correct results and, in the short run, sometimes to final decisions but always to sensible estimates. The paper contains a new and natural kind of semantics for S5from which it follows that a specific subset of (...) the standard worlds-models is characteristic for S5. (shrink)
This paper presents and illustrates a formal logic for the abduction of singular hypotheses. The logic has a semantics and a dynamic proof theory that is sound and complete with respect to the semantics. The logic presupposes that, with respect to a specific application, the set of explananda and the set of possible explanantia are disjoint . Where an explanandum can be explained by different explanantia, the logic allows only for the abduction of their disjunction.
Adaptive logics typically pertain to reasoning procedures for which there is no positive test. In , we presented a tableau method for two inconsistency-adaptive logics. In the present paper, we describe these methods and present several ways to increase their efficiency. This culminates in a dynamic marking procedure that indicates which branches have to be extended first, and thus guides one towards a decision — the conclusion follows or does not follow — in a very economical way.
The paper contains a survey of (mainly unpublished) adaptive logics of inductive generalization. These defeasible logics are precise formulations of certain methods. Some attention is also paid to ways of handling background knowledge, introducing mere conjectures, and the research guiding capabilities of the logics.
This paper spells out a dynamic proof format for the pure logic of relevant implication. (A proof is dynamic if a formula derived at some stage need not be derived at a later stage.) The paper illustrates three interesting points. (i) A set of properties that characterizes an inference relation on the (very natural) dynamic proof interpretation, need not characterize the same inference relation (or even any inference relation) on the usual settheoretical interpretation. (ii) A proof format may display an (...) internal dynamics (defeasible conclusions) in the absence of an external dynamics (non-monotonicity). (iii) A monotonic logic may have a non-monotonic characterization. (shrink)
A logic of diagnosis proceeds in terms of a set of data and one or more (prioritized) sets of expectancies. In this paper we generalize the logics of diagnosis from  and present some alternatives. The former operate on the premises and expectancies themselves, the latter on their consequences.
Pluralism has many meanings. An assessment of the need for logical pluralism with respect to scientific knowledge requires insights in its domain of application. So first a specific form of epistemic pluralism will be defended. Knowledge turns out a patchwork of knowledge chunks. These serve descriptive as well as evaluative functions, may have competitors within the knowledge system, interact with each other, and display a characteristic dynamics caused by new information as well as by mutual readjustment. Logics play a role (...) in the organization of the chunks, in their applications and in the exchange of information between them. Epistemic pluralism causes a specific form of logical pluralism. Against this background, the occurrence of inconsistencies will be discussed together with required reactions and systematic ways to explicate them. Finally, the place of inconsistencies in the sciences will be considered. Seven theses will be proposed and argued for. The implications of each of these for pluralism will be considered. The general tenet is that paraconsistency plays an important role, bound to become more explicit in the future, but that the occurrence of inconsistencies does not basically affect the need for pluralism. (shrink)
In this paper I present a simple and straightforward logic of induction: a consequence relation characterized by a proof theory and a semantics. This system will be called LI. The premises will be restricted to, on the one hand, a set of empirical data and, on the other hand, a set of background generalizations. Among the consequences will be generalizations as well as singular statements, some of which may serve as predictions and explanations.
In [BAT 00b], the flat Rescher–Manor consequence relations — the Free, Strong, Argued, C-Based, andWeak consequence relation—were shown to be characterized by inconsistency-adaptive logics defined from the paraconsistent logic CLuN. This provided these consequence relations with a dynamic proof theory. In the present paper we show that the detour via an inconsistency-adaptive logic is not necessary. We present a direct dynamic proof theory, formulated in the language of Classical Logic, and prove its adequacy. The present paper contains the first direct (...) dynamic proof theory for consequence relations that are characterized by an adaptive logic. (shrink)
The paper highlights the import of the paraconsistent movement, list some motivations for its origin, and distinguishes some stands with respect to para-consistency. It then discusses some sources of inconsistency that are specific for worldviews, and the import of the paraconsistent turn for the worldviews enterprise.
In this paper, a propositional logic Q is presented. This logic is more attractive than classical propositional logic P for explicating actual proofs. Moreover, while Q and P assign the same consequence set to consistent premise sets, Q assigns a sensible and non-trivial consequence set to inconsistent premise sets.
. This paper proposes a generalization of the theory of the process of explanation to include consistent as well as inconsistent situations. The generalization is strong, for example in the sense that, if the background theory and the initial conditions are consistent, it leads to precisely the same results as the theory from the lead paper (Halonen and Hintikka 2004). The paper presupposes (and refers to arguments for the view that) inconsistencies constitute problems and that scientists try to resolve them.
Inconsistency-adaptive logics isolate the inconsistencies that are derivable from a premise set, and restrict the rules of Classical Logic only where inconsistencies are involved. From many inconsistent premise sets, disjunctions of contradictions are derivable no disjunct of which is itself derivable. Given such a disjunction, it is often justified to introduce new premises that state, with a certain degree of confidence, that some of the disjuncts are false. This is an important first step on the road to consistency: it narrows (...) down suspicion in inconsistent premise sets and hence locates the real problems among the possible ones. In this paper I present two approaches for handling such new premises in the context of the original premises. The first approach may apparently be combined with all paraconsistent logics. The second approach does not have the same generality, but is decidedly more elegant. (shrink)
Creativity is commonly seen as beyond the scope of rationality. In the present paper, it is argued that available insights in epistemology and available results in logic enable us to incorporate creativity within an independently sensible view on human rationality.
For Tarski logics, there are simple criteria that enable one to conclude that two premise sets are equivalent. We shall show that the very same criteria hold for adaptive logics, which is a major advantage in comparison to other approaches to defeasible reasoning forms. A related property of Tarski logics is that the extensions of equivalent premise sets with the same set of formulas are equivalent premise sets. This does not hold for adaptive logics. However a very similar criterion does. (...) We also shall show that every monotonic logic weaker than an adaptive logic is weaker than the lower limit logic of the adaptive logic or identical to it. This highlights the role of the lower limit for settling the adaptive equivalence of extensions of equivalent premise sets. (shrink)
It is shown that the implicational fragment of Anderson and Belnap's R, i.e. Church's weak implicational calculus, is not uniquely characterized by MP (modus ponens), US (uniform substitution), and WDT (Church's weak deduction theorem). It is also shown that no unique logic is characterized by these, but that the addition of further rules results in the implicational fragment of R. A similar result for E is mentioned.
A distinction is made between the internal paradox (inconsistency of our intuitions) and the external one (no explicatum captures all our intuitions). seemingly counterintuitive aspects of carnap's inductive logic (external paradox) are shown to be sound. considering the purpose of formulating an hypothesis, and its intended competitors, it is explained why nicod's criterion seems plausible (internal paradox). incidentally baumer's theory (bjps, 15) is proved to violate the equivalence condition.
This paper defines provably non-trivial theories that characterize Frege’s notion of a set, taking into account that the notion is inconsistent. By choosing an adaptive underlying logic, consistent sets behave classically notwithstanding the presence of inconsistent sets. Some of the theories have a full-blown presumably consistent set theory T as a subtheory, provided T is indeed consistent. An unexpected feature is the presence of classical negation within the language.