Abstract
After it is argued that philosophers of science have lost interest in logic because they applied the wrong type of logics, examples are given of the forms of dynamic reasoning that are central for philosophy of science and epistemology. Adaptive logics are presented as a means to understand and explicate those forms of reasoning. All members of a specific (large) set of adaptive logics are proved to have a number of properties that warrant their formal decency and their suitability with respect to understanding and explicating dynamic forms of reasoning. Most of the properties extend to other adaptive logics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arieli, Ofer and Arnon Avron: 2000, ‘General Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations’, Logic Journal of the IGPL 8, 119–148.
Avron, Arnon and Iddo Lev: to appear, ‘Formula-preferential Systems for Paraconsistent Nonmonotonic Reasoning (An Extended Abstract)’.
Batens, Diderik: 1985 ‘Meaning, Acceptance, and Dialectics’, in Joseph C.Pitt (ed.), Change and Progress in Modern Science, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp.333–360.
Batens, Diderik: 1986, ‘Dialectical Dynamics within Formal Logics’, Logique et Analyse 114, 161– 173.
Batens, Diderik: 1989 ‘Dynamic Dialectical Logics’, in Graham Priest, Richard Routley and Jean Norman (eds.), Paraconsistent Logic.Essays on the Inconsistent, München, Philosophia Verlag pp.187–217.
Batens, Diderik: 1992, ‘Do we Need a Hierarchical Model of Science?’, in John Earman (ed.), Inference, Explanation, and Other Frustrations.Essays in the Philosophy of Science, University of California Press, pp.199–215.
Batens, Diderik: 1995, ‘Blocks.The Clue to Dynamic Aspects of Logic’, Logique et Analyse 150– 152, 285–328, appeared in 1997.
Batens, Diderik: 1999a, Inconsistency-adaptive Logics, in Orlowska (1999, 445–472).
Batens, Diderik: 1999b, ‘Linguistic and Ontological Measures for Comparing the Inconsistent Parts of Models’, Logique et Analyse 165–166, 5–33, appeared in 2002.
Batens, Diderik: 1999c, ‘Zero Logic Adding up to Classical Logic’, Logical Studies 2, 15.(Electronic Journal: http://www.logic.ru/LogStud/02/LS2.html).
Batens, Diderik: 2000a, ‘Minimally Abnormal Models in Some Adaptive Logics’, Synthese 125, 5–18.
Batens, Diderik: 2000b, ‘Towards the Unification of Inconsistency Handling Mechanisms’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 8, 5–31, appeared in 2002.
Batens, Diderik: 2001, ‘A Dynamic Characterization of the Pure Logic of Relevant Implication’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 30, 267–280.
Batens, Diderik: 2002, ‘On a Partial Decision Method for Dynamic Proofs’, in Hendrik Decker, Jürgen Villadsen and Toshiharu Waragai (eds.), PCL 2002.Paraconsistent Computational Logic, (= Datalogiske Skrifter vol.95), pp.91–108.Also available as cs.LO/0207090 at http://arxiv.org/archive/cs/intro.html.
Batens, Diderik: 2003, ‘On a Logic of Induction’, in Roberto Festa, Atocha Aliseda and Jeanne Peijn-enburg (eds.), Confirmation, Empirical Progress, and Truth Approximation.Essays in Debate with Theo Kuipers, Vol.1, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, Amsterdam, Rodopi, in print.
Batens, Diderik: in print(a), ‘Aspects of the Dynamics of Discussions and Logics Handling Them’, Logical Studies.
Batens, Diderik: in print(b), ‘The theory of the Process of Explanation Generalized to Include the Inconsistent Case’, Synthese.
Batens, Diderik: to appear, ‘A Strengthening of the Rescher—Manor Consequence Relations’, Logic and logical Philosophy.
Batens, Diderik and Lieven Haesaert: 2001, ‘On Classical Adaptive Logics of Induction’, Logique et Analyse 173–175, 255–290, appeared 2003.
Batens, Diderik and Joke Meheus: 2000a, ‘The Adaptive Logic of Compatibility’, Studia Logica 66, 327–348.
Batens, Diderik and Joke Meheus: 2000b, ‘A Tableau Method for Inconsistency-adaptive Logics’, in Roy Dyckhoff (ed.), Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol.1847, Springer, pp.127–142.
Batens Diderik and Joke Meheus: 2001a, ‘On the Logic and Pragmatics of the Process of Explanation’, in Mika Kiikeri and Petri Ylikoski (eds.), Explanatory Connections.Electronic Essays Dedicated to Matti Sintonen, http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/kfil/matti/, 22 pp.
Batens, Diderik and Joke Meheus: 2001b, ‘Shortcuts and Dynamic Marking in the Tableau Method for Adaptive Logics’, Studia Logica 69, 221–248.
Batens, Diderik, Joke Meheus, Dagmar Provijn and Liza Verhoeven: 2003, ‘Some Adaptive Logics for Diagnosis’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 11/12, 39–65.
Benferhat, Salem, Didier Dubois, and Henri Prade: 1997, ‘Some Syntactic Approaches to the Handling of Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Comparative Study.Part 1: The Flat Case’, Studia Logica 58, 17–45.
Benferhat, Salem, Didier Dubois, and Henri Prade: 1999, ‘Some Syntactic Approaches to the Handling of Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Comparative Study.Part 2: The Prioritized Case’, in Orlowska (1999, pp.473–511).
Boolos, George S.and Richard J.Jeffrey: 1989, Computability and Logic, 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Bryson: 1990, ‘How to be Realistic about Inconsistency in Science’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21, 281–294.
da Costa, Newton C.A.: 1963, ‘Calculs propositionnels pour les systèmes formels inconsistants’, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences de Paris 259, 3790–3792.
De Clercq, Kristof: 2000, ‘Two New Strategies for Inconsistency-adaptive Logics’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 8, 65–80, appeared in 2002.
Feyerabend, Paul K: 1970, ‘Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Lnowledge’, in M.Radner and S.Winokur (eds.), Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Vol.4 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp.17–30.
Halonen, Ilpo and Jaakko Hintikka: to appear, ‘Toward a Theory of the Process of Explanation’, Synthese.
Jaśkowski, Stanislaw: 1969, ‘Propositional Calculus for Contradictory Deductive Systems’, Studia Logica 24, 243–257.
Karus, Sarit, Daniel Lehman, and Menachem Magidor: 1990, ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics’, Artificial Intelligence 44, 167–207.
Laudan, Larry: 1977, Progress and its Problems, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Lev, Iddo: 2000, ‘Preferential Systems for Plausible Non-classical Reasoning’, Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University.
Meheus, Joke: 1993, ‘Adaptive Logic in Scientific Discovery: The Case of Clausius’, Logique et Analyse 143–144, 359–389, appeared in 1996.
Meheus, Joke: 2000, ‘An Extremely Rich Paraconsistent Logic and the Adaptive Logic Based On It’, in Diderik Batens, Chris Mortensen, Graham Priest and Jean Paul Van Bendegem (eds.), Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic, Baldock, UK, Research Studies Press, pp.189–201.
Meheus, Joke: 2002, ‘Inconsistencies in Scientific Discovery.Clausius's Remarkable Derivation of Carnot's Theorem’, in Helge Krach, Geert Vanpaemel and Pierre Marage (eds.), History of Modern Physics, Brepols, Brepols, pp.143–154.
Nersessian, Nancy: 2002, ‘Inconsistency, Generic Modeling, and Conceptual Change in Science’, in Joke Meheus (ed.), Inconsistency in Science, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp.197–211.
Nickles, Thomas (eds.): 1980a, Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, Dordrecht, Reidel.
Nickles, Thomas (eds.): 1980b, Scientific Discovery: Case Studies.Dordrecht, Reidel.
Norton, John: 1987, ‘The Logical Inconsistency of the Old Quantum Theory of Black Body Radiation’, Philosophy of Science 54, 327–350.
Norton, John: 1993, ‘A Paradox in Newtonian Gravitation Theory’, PSA 1992 2, 421–420.
Orlowska, Ewa (ed.): 1999, Logic at Work.Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, Heidelberg, New York, Physica Verlag (Springer).
Priest, Graham: 1991, ‘Minimally Inconsistent LP’, Studia Logica 50, 321–331.
Provijn, Dagmar and Erik Weber: 2002, ‘Two Adaptive Logics for Non-explanatory and Explanatory Diagnostic Reasoning’, in Lorenzo Magnani, Nancy J.Nersessian and Claudio Pizzi (eds.), Logical and Computational Aspects of Model-Based Reasoning, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp.117–142.
Rescher, Nicholas and Ruth Manor: 1970, ‘On Inference from Inconsistent Premises’, Theory and Decision 1, 179–217.
Smith, Joel: 1988, ‘Inconsistency and Scientific Reasoning’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19, 429–445.
Verhoeven, Liza: 2003, ‘Changing One's Position in Discussions.Some Adaptive Approaches’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 11/12, 277–297.
Verhoeven, Liza: to appear, ‘Proof Theories for Some Prioritized Consequence Relations’.
Weber, Erik and Dagmar Provijn: 1999, ‘A Formal Analysis of Diagnosis and Diagnostic Reasoning’, Logique et Analyse 165–166, 161–180, appeared in 2002.
Wiśniewski, Andrzej: 1995, The Posing of Questions.Logical Foundations of Erotetic Inferences, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Wiśniewski, Andrzej: 1996, ‘The Logic of Questions as a Theory of Erotetic Arguments’, Synthese 109, 1–25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Batens, D. (2009). The Need for Adaptive Logics In Epistemology. In: Rahman, S., Symons, J., Gabbay, D.M., Bendegem, J.P.v. (eds) Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Logic, Epistemology, And The Unity Of Science, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2486-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2808-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive