Toward a Logic of Everyday Reasoning

  • Pei WangEmail author
Part of the Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems book series (SSCNS, volume 12)


Logic should return its focus to valid reasoning in real-world situations. Since classical logic only covers valid reasoning in a highly idealized situation, there is a demand for a new logic for everyday reasoning that is based on more realistic assumptions, while still keeps the general, formal, and normative nature of logic. NAL (Non-Axiomatic Logic) is built for this purpose, which is based on the assumption that the reasoner has insufficient knowledge and resources with respect to the reasoning tasks to be carried out. In this situation, the notion of validity has to be re-established, and the grammar rules and inference rules of the logic need to be designed accordingly. Consequently, NAL has features very different from classical logic and other non-classical logics, and it provides a coherent solution to many problems in logic, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.


Non-classical logic Uncertainty Openness Relevance Validity 


  1. Adams EW (1998) A primer of probability logic. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson AR, Belnap ND (1975) Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity, vol 1. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Aristotle (1882) The organon, or, logical treatises of Aristotle. George Bell, London. Translated by O. F. OwenGoogle Scholar
  5. Aristotle (1989) Prior analytics. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. Translated by R. SmithGoogle Scholar
  6. Aristotle (2005) Metaphysics. NuVision Publications, LLC. Translated by W. D. RossGoogle Scholar
  7. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Barwise J, Etchemendy J (1989) Model-theoretic semantics. In: Posner MI (ed) Foundations of cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 207–243Google Scholar
  9. Birnbaum L (1991) Rigor mortis: a response to Nilsson’s “Logic and artificial intelligence”. Artif Intell 47:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bocheński IM (1970) A history of formal logic. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York. Translated and edited by I. ThomasGoogle Scholar
  11. Braine MDS, O’Brien DP (eds) (1998) Mental logic. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  12. Bringsjord S (2008) The logicist manifesto: at long last let logic-based artificial intelligence become a field unto itself. J Appl Logic 6(4):502–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cherniak C (1986) Minimal rationality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Feigenbaum EA, Feldman J (1963) Computers and thought. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Flach PA, Kakas AC (2000) Abductive and inductive reasoning: background and issues. In: Flach PA, Kakas AC (eds) Abduction and induction: essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frege G (1999) Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In: van Heijenoort J (ed) Frege and Gödel: two fundamental texts in mathematical logic. iUniverse, Lincoln, pp 1–82. Originally published in 1879Google Scholar
  17. Gabbay DM (2007) Logic for artificial intelligence and information technology. College Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabbay DM, Woods J (2001) The new logic. Log J IGPL 9(2):141–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaifman H (2004) Reasoning with limited resources and assigning probabilities to arithmetical statements. Synthese 140:97–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) (2002) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Goertzel B (2009) Cognitive synergy: a universal principle for feasible general intelligence? Dynamical psychology. An online journal.
  22. Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) (2007) Artificial general intelligence. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Goertzel B, Iklé M, Goertzel IF, Heljakka A (2008) Probabilistic logic networks: a comprehensive framework for uncertain inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Good IJ (1983) Good thinking: the foundations of probability and its applications. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  25. Grayling AC (2001) An introduction to philosophical logic, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  26. Gust H, Krumnack U, Schwering A, Kühnberger K-U (2009) The role of logic in AGI systems: towards a lingua franca for general intelligence. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. Arlington, Virginia, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  27. Haack S (1978) Philosophy of logics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haack S (1996) Deviant logic, fuzzy logic: beyond the formalism. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Halpern JY, Harper R, Immerman N, Kolaitis PG, Vardi MY, Vianu V (2001) On the unusual effectiveness of logic in computer science. Bull Symb Log 7(2):213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammer P, Lofthouse T, Wang P (2016) The OpenNARS implementation of the non-axiomatic reasoning system. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. New York City, New York, pp 160–170Google Scholar
  31. Hanna R (2006) Rationality and logic. Bradford books. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes PJ (1977) In defense of logic. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 559–565Google Scholar
  33. Hayes PJ (1979) The naïve physics manifesto. In: Michie D (ed) Expert systems in the micro-electronic age. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 242–270Google Scholar
  34. Hempel CG (1943) A purely syntactical definition of confirmation. J Symb Log 8:122–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hendricks V, Symons J (2015) Epistemic logic. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2015 edition. The Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford.
  36. Hume D (1977) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Hackett Publishing Company, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson-Laird P (1983) Mental models. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirsh D (1991) Foundations of AI: the big issues. Artif Intell 47:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kneale W, Kneale M (1962) The development of logic. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Kowalski R (1979) Logic for problem solving. North Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Kyburg HE (1970) Probability and inductive logic. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Lenat DB (1995) CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun ACM 38(11):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCarthy J (1988) Mathematical logic in artificial intelligence. Dædalus 117(1):297–311Google Scholar
  44. McCarthy J (1989) Artificial intelligence, logic and formalizing common sense. In: Thomason RH (ed) Philosophical logic and artificial intelligence. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 161–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McDermott D (1987) A critique of pure reason. Comput Intell 3:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Minsky M (1990) Logical vs. analogical or symbolic vs. connectionist or neat vs. scruffy. In: Winston PH, Shellard SA (eds) Artificial intelligence at MIT: expanding frontiers, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 218–243Google Scholar
  47. Montague R (1970) Universal grammar. Theoria 36(3):373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nilsson NJ (1986) Probabilistic logic. Artif Intell 28:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nilsson NJ (1991) Logic and artificial intelligence. Artif Intell 47:31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peirce CS (1931) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 2. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Priest G, Routley R, Norman J (eds) (1989) Paraconsistent logic: essays on the inconsistent. Philosophia Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  53. Reiter R (1987) Nonmonotonic reasoning. Ann Rev Comput Sci 2:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Russell S, Norvig P (2010) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  55. Russell S, Wefald EH (1991) Do the right thing: studies in limited rationality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Schroeder-Heister P (2006) Validity concepts in proof-theoretic semantics. Synthese 148:525–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Steinkrüger P (2015) Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic and modern relevance logic. Synthese 192:1413–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stenning K, van Lambalgen M (2008) Human reasoning and cognitive science. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind LIX:433–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vila L (1994) A survey on temporal reasoning in artificial intelligence. AI Commun 7(1):4–28Google Scholar
  62. Wang P (1995) Non-axiomatic reasoning system: exploring the essence of intelligence. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang P (2001) Confidence as higher-order uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, Ithaca, New York, pp 352–361Google Scholar
  64. Wang P (2004a) The limitation of Bayesianism. Artif Intell 158(1):97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang P (2004b) Toward a unified artificial intelligence. In: Papers from the 2004 AAAI Fall Symposium on Achieving Human-Level Intelligence Through Integrated Research and Systems, Washington DC, pp 83–90Google Scholar
  66. Wang P (2005) Experience-grounded semantics: a theory for intelligent systems. Cogn Syst Res 6(4):282–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang P (2006) Rigid flexibility: the logic of intelligence. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang P (2008) What do you mean by ‘AI’. In: Proceedings of the First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, pp 362–373Google Scholar
  69. Wang P (2009) Formalization of evidence: a comparative study. J Artif General Intell 1:25–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang P (2011) The assumptions on knowledge and resources in models of rationality. Int J Mach Conscious 3(1):193–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang P (2013) Non-axiomatic logic: a model of intelligent reasoning. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang P, Goertzel B (2007) Introduction: aspects of artificial general intelligence. In: Goertzel B, Wang P (eds) Advance of artificial general intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  73. Wang P, Hofstadter D (2006) A logic of categorization. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 18(2):193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang P, Li X (2016) Different conceptions of learning: function approximation vs. self-organization. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. New York City, New York, pp 140–149Google Scholar
  75. Wason PC, Johnson-Laird PN (1972) Psychology of reasoning: structure and content. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  76. Whitehead AN, Russell B (1910) Principia mathematica. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  77. Williamson J (2007) Causality. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 14. Springer, New York, pp 95–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson RA, Keil FC (eds) (1999) The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  79. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zadeh LA (1983) The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations