On the Issue of Contraposition of Defeasible Rules
نویسنده
چکیده
The past ten years have shown a great variety of approaches for formal argumentation. An interesting question is to which extent these various formalisms correspond to the different application domains. That is, does the appropriate argumentation formalism depend on the particular domain of application, or does “one size fits all”. In this paper, we study this question from the perspective of one relatively simple design consideration: should or should there not be contrapostion of (or modus tollens) on defeasible rules. We aim to show that the answer depends on whether one is considering epistemical or constitutive reasoning, and that hence different domains require fundamentally different forms of defeasible reasoning.
منابع مشابه
Two Aspects of Relevance in Structured Argumentation: Minimality and Paraconsistency
This paper studies two issues concerning relevance in structured argumentation in the context of the ASPIC framework, arising from the combined use of strict and defeasible inference rules. One issue arises if the strict inference rules correspond to classical logic. A longstanding problem is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided while satisfying consist...
متن کاملHandling defeasibilities in action domains
Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning. In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a prioritized...
متن کاملNested Rules in Defeasible Logic
Defeasible Logic is a rule-based non-monotonic logic with tractable reasoning services. In this paper we extend Defeasible Logic with nested rules. We consider a new Defeasible Logic, called DLns, where we allow one level of nested rules. A nested rule is a rule where the antecedent or the consequent of the rule are rules themselves. The inference conditions for DLns are based on reflection on ...
متن کاملExtending Defeasible Logic and Defeasible Prolog
Defeasible logic (DL) promotes enthymemic, argumentative reasoning on incomplete set of premisses retracted on the presence of contrary information. Defeasible Prolog (d-Prolog) is a Prolog metainterpreter to implement DL. We give proof conditions for the even-if clauses of DL with the pre-emption of defeaters to prevent rules from rebutting more specific rules, implemented in d-Prolog.
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 کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008