Defeasible and Ampliative Reasoning: Same-same but Different
نویسنده
چکیده
Defeasible and ampliative reasoning are two sides of the same coin. They use similar techniques, but for very different purposes. This talk will explore these similarities and differences.
منابع مشابه
Ampliative Patterns in Argumentative Reasoning
There are good characterizations of ampliative inference in monotonic theories. However, a problem that faces ampliative inference, in particular abduction, is the explanation of anomalous observations, i. e., observations that are contradictory with the current theory. For this reason, in this work we will consider the problem of embedding abduction of surprising and anomalous observations in ...
متن کاملAnalogy, Decision, And Theory-Formation As Defeasible Reasoning
The development of computationally informed formalisms for reasoning with defeasible rules affords new accounts of familiar forms of reasoning. This paper points to recent accounts of defeasible reasoning and portrays analogy, decision, and theory-formation as essentially defeasible, in the same way that statistical reasoning has been portrayed. Each portrayal depends largely on the idea of par...
متن کاملDefeasible Reasoning
What philosophers call defeosible reasoning is roughly the same OS nonmonotonic reasoning in Al. Some brief remarks ore mode about the nature of reasoning and the relationship between work in epistemology, Al, and cognitive psychology. This is followed by a general description of human rotionol architecture. This description has the consequence that defeasible reasoning has o more complicoted s...
متن کاملLimitations of Skeptical Default Reasoning
Poole has shown that nonmonotonic logics do not handle the lottery paradox correctly. In this paper we will show that Pollock's the ory of defeasible reasoning fails for the same reason: defeasible reasoning is incompatible with the skeptical notion of derivability.
متن کاملDefeasible Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach Towards Defeasible Argumentation
Defeasible argumentation is concerned with studying plausible but, at the same time, fallible patterns of reasoning. Because plausible arguments can easily be developed, and not all of them can be in force at the same time, the main thrust of the theory is in deriving sound principles for adjudicating among conflicting lines of argumentation. In this paper, we propose to resolve such conflicts ...
متن کامل