Arguments Using Ontological and Causal Knowledge
نویسندگان
چکیده
We explore an approach to reasoning about causes via argumentation. We consider a causal model for a physical system, and we look for arguments about facts. Some arguments are meant to provide explanations of facts whereas some challenge these explanations and so on. At the root of argumentation here, are causal links ({A1, · · · , An} causes B) and also ontological links (c1 is a c2). We introduce here a logical approach which provides a candidate explanation ({A1, · · · , An} explains {B1, · · · , Bm}) by resorting to an underlying causal link substantiated with appropriate ontological links. Argumentation is then at work from these various explanation links. A case study is developed: a severe storm Xynthia that devastated a county in France in 2010, with an unaccountably high number of casualties.
منابع مشابه
Round 3: Regarding Objectivity and Causality – A Rejoinder to Fishman and Miller
In this rejoinder I respond separately to Daniel Fishman’s and Ronald B. Miller’s respective arguments regarding my views about objectivity and causality, owing to the fact that Fishman finds a place for “objectivity” and “causality” within his theoretical model whereas Miller does not. First, I question the basis for Fishman’s conclusion that coherence and pragmatic models are objectivist acco...
متن کاملCausality and the ontology of disease
The goal of this paper is two-fold: first, to emphasize causality in disease ontology and knowledge representation, presenting a general and cursory discussion of causality and causal chains; and second, to clarify and develop the River Flow Model of Diseases (RFM). The RFM is an ontological account of disease, representing the causal structure of pathology. It applies general knowledge of caus...
متن کاملCausal Knowledge Network Integration for Life Cycle Assessment
Sustainability requires emphasizing the importance of environmental causes and effects among design knowledge from heterogeneous stakeholders to make a sustainable decision. Recently, such causes and effects have been well developed in ontological representation, which has been challenged to generate and integrate multiple domain knowledge due to its domain specific characteristics. Moreover, i...
متن کاملModelling Imprecise Arguments in Description Logic
Real arguments are a mixture of fuzzy linguistic variables and ontological knowledge. This paper focuses on modelling imprecise arguments in order to obtain a better interleaving of human and software agents argumentation, which might be proved useful for extending the number of real life argumentative-based applications. We propose Fuzzy Description Logic as the adequate technical instrumentat...
متن کاملThe Two-Dimensional Argument Against Materialism
A number of popular arguments for dualism start from a premise about an epistemic gap between physical truths about truths about consciousness, and infer an ontological gap between physical processes and consciousness. Arguments of this sort include the conceivability argument, the knowledge argument, the explanatory-gap argument, and the property dualism argument. Such arguments are often resi...
متن کامل