Defeasible Reasoning + Partial Models: A Formal Framework for the Methodology of Research Programs
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we show that any reasoning process in which conclusions can be both fallible and corrigible can be formalized in terms of two approaches: (i) syntactically, with the use of defeasible reasoning, according to which reasoning consists in the construction and assessment of arguments for and against a given claim, and (ii) semantically, with the use of partial structures, which allow for the representation of less than conclusive information. We are particularly interested in the formalization of scientific reasoning, along the lines traced by Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs. We show how current debates in cosmology could be put into this framework, shedding light on a very controversial topic.
منابع مشابه
Some Reflections on Two Current Trends in Formal Argumentation
This paper discusses two recent developments in the formal study of argumentation-based inference: work on preference-based abstract argumentation and on classical (deductive) argumentation. It is first argued that general models of the use of preferences in argumentation cannot leave the structure of arguments and the nature of attack and defeat unspecified. Then it is claimed that classical a...
متن کاملA Formal Approach to Protocols and Strategies for (Legal) Negotiation
We propose a formal and executable framework for expressing protocols and strategies for automated (legal) negotiation. In this framework a party involved in a negotiation is represented through a software agent composed of four modules: (i) a communication module which manages the interaction with the other agents; (ii) a control module; (iii) a reasoning module specified as a defeasible theor...
متن کاملDeLP based Semantic Location Lattice for Intelligent Robotic Navigation
Location models require a well-defined representation of spatial connectivity and hierarchical relationship between different spatial concepts; and are fundamental for location navigation, location based services and contextual query responses. Current location models rely on a priori knowledge of surrounding environment and mostly the semantics of relationships are over-looked. In this paper w...
متن کاملRelations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assump...
متن کاملDR-DEVICE: A Defeasible Logic RDF Rule Language
Defeasible reasoning is a rule-based approach for efficient reasoning with incomplete and inconsistent information. Such reasoning is, among others, useful for ontology integration, where conflicting information arises naturally; and for the modeling of business rules and policies, where rules with exceptions are often used. In this demonstration we present a prototype system for defeasible rea...
متن کامل