Rigorous Deductive Argumentation for Socially Relevant Issues
نویسنده
چکیده
Rigorous Deductive Argumentation for Socially Relevant Issues Dustin Wehr Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2015 The most important problems for society are describable only in vague terms, dependent on subjective positions, and missing highly relevant data. This thesis is intended to revive and further develop the view that giving non-trivial, rigorous deductive arguments concerning such problems –without eliminating the complications of vagueness, subjectivity, and uncertainty– is, though very difficult, not problematic in principle, does not require the invention of new logics (classical first-order logic will do), and is something that more mathematically-inclined people should be pursuing. The framework of interpreted formal proofs is presented for formalizing and criticizing rigorous deductive arguments about vague, subjective, and uncertain issues, and its adequacy is supported largely by a number of major examples. This thesis also documents progress towards a web system for collaboratively authoring and criticizing such arguments, which is the ultimate goal of
منابع مشابه
Validation sociale d'annotations collectives : argumentation bipolaire graduelle pour la théorie sociale de l'information
Our field of investigation concerns human annotation of electronic resources. We identify some issues of annotation systems concerning their scalability: a resource more and more annotated is less and less exploitable by individuals. However, scalability is a key issue for a system usability. That is the reason why we propose a way to socially validate collective annotations in accordance with ...
متن کاملA Formalization of Defeasible Argumentation using a Labeled Deductive System
In the last years there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI, logic programming and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. In the last decade, defeasible argumentation has proven to be a confluence point for many app...
متن کاملMerging Deductive and Abductive Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Context Approach
The consideration of heterogenous knowledge sources for supporting decision making is key to accomplish informed decisions, e.g., about medical diagnosis. Consequently, merging different data from different knowledge bases is a key issue for providing support for decision-making. In this paper, we explore an argumentation context approach, which follows how medical professionals typically reaso...
متن کاملCoherence 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 کاملModeling Argumentation with Labeled Deduction: Formalization and Theoretical Considerations
In the last years there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI, logic programming and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a °exible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. During the last decade defeasible argumentation has proven to be a con°uence point for many ap...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- CoRR
دوره abs/1502.02272 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2015