Is Plausible Reasoning a Sensible Alternative for Inductive-Statistical Reasoning?
نویسندگان
چکیده
The general purpose of this paper is to show a practical instance of how philosophy can benefit from some ideas, methods and techniques developed in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It has to do with some recent claims [4] that some of the most traditional philosophical problems have been raised and, in some sense, solved by AI researchers. The philosophical problem we will deal with here is the representation of non-deductive intratheoretic scientific inferences. We start by showing the flaws with the most traditional solution for this problem found in philosophy: Hempel’s InductiveStatistical (I-S) model [5]. After we present a new formal model based on previous works motivated by reasoning needs in Artificial Intelligence [11] and show that since it does not suffer from the problems identified in the I-S model, it has great chances to be successful in the task of satisfactorily representing the non-deductive intra-theoretic scientific inferences.
منابع مشابه
Coherence and argument structure: An empirical comparison between plausible reasoning and the Bayesian approach to argumentation
Plausible reasoning has been proposed as an alternative to deductive and inductive norms of argument evaluation in informal logic. In this paper, we present the first systematic empirical contrast between the Bayesian account of argumentation and a plausible reasoning model. Results suggest that the Bayesian approach to argumentation provides a more precise picture of how people evaluate the st...
متن کاملمقایسه تفکر انتقادی دانشجویان ترم اول و ترم آخر مقطع کارشناسی پیوسته مامایی دانشگاههای علوم پزشکی شهر تهران
Introduction: Midwifery practice is involved with clinical judgments which have direct effect on mother;aposs and embryo;aposs health. A midwife should be able to make vital decisions based on her knowledge and skills in emergency situations. A midwife can reach correct decisions by using critical thinking. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional, descriptive-comparative study we compare...
متن کاملRepresenting and Reasoning with Defaults for Learning Agent
The challenge we address is to create autonomous, inductively learning agents that exploit and modify a knowledge base. Our general approach, embodied in a continuing research program (joint with Stuart Russell), is declarative bias, i.e., to use declarative knowledge to constrain the hypothesis space in inductive learning. In previous work, we have shown that many kinds of declarative bias can...
متن کاملChoice of Plausible Alternatives: An Evaluation of Commonsense Causal Reasoning
Research in open-domain commonsense reasoning has been hindered by the lack of evaluation metrics for judging progress and comparing alternative approaches. Taking inspiration from large-scale question sets used in natural language processing research, we authored one thousand English-language questions that directly assess commonsense causal reasoning, called the Choice Of Plausible Alternativ...
متن کاملRepresenting and Reasoning with Defaults For Learning Agents
The challenge we address is to create autonomous , inductively learning agents that exploit and modify a knowledge base. Our general approach, embodied in a continuing research program (joint with Stuart Rus-sell), is declarative bias, i.e., to use declarative knowledge to constrain the hypothesis space in inductive learning. In previous work, we have shown that many kinds of declarative bias c...
متن کامل