What Kind of Proof Can Be Constructed following an Abductive Argumentation?
نویسنده
چکیده
My interests focus on the comparison between the abductive argumentation supporting a conjecture and the related proof. In particular, .the purpose of my research is to show the importance of a structural analysis between them (from an abductive argumentation to a deductive proof, from an abductive argumentation to an abductive “proof”). I propose the Toulmin’s model as a tool which can be used to detect and to analyse some structural continuities and some structural gaps between an argumentation and the following proof. This analysis allows identifying in the passage from an abductive argumentation to a deductive proof, one of the possible trouble met by students in the construction of a proof.
منابع مشابه
Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming
We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypotheses that explain skeptical/credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.
متن کاملComputing the Acceptability Semantics
We present a proof theory and a proof procedure for non-monotonic reasoning based on the acceptability semantics for logic programming , formulated in an argumentation framework. These proof theory and procedure are deened as generalisations of corresponding proof theories and procedures for the stable theory and preferred extension semantics. In turn, these can be seen as generalisations of th...
متن کاملAn Abductive Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs and Its Proof Procedure
While it is well-known how normal logic programs may be viewed as a form of abduction and argumentation, the problem of how disjunctive programs may be used for abductive reasoning is rarely discussed. In this paper we propose an abductive semantics for disjunctive logic programs with default negation and show that Eshghi and Kowal-ski's abductive proof procedure for normal programs can be adop...
متن کاملComputing Argumentation in Logic Programming
In recent years, argumentation has been shown to be an appropriate framework in which logic programming with negation as failure as well as other logics for non-monotonic reasoning can be encompassed. Many of the existing semantics for negation as failure in logic programming can be understood in a uniform way using argumentation. Moreover, other logics for non-monotonic reasoning that can also...
متن کاملA Semantics for the Kakas-Mancarella Procedure for Abductive Logic Programming
The paper presents a soundness result for the Kakas-Mancarella proof procedure for abductive logic programming with respect to an argumentation-theoretic semantics. Furthermore, it discusses the relationship of the Kakas-Mancarella procedure and its semantics with other proof procedures and semantics for abductive logic programming.
متن کامل