Interrogative Inquiry as Defeasible Reasoning
- 291 Downloads
This paper presents an account of interrogative inquiry based on defeasible inference rules. With any such account, the main issue is the proper identification of the class of conclusions that are warranted on the basis of a set of such rules. In particular, the main formal features that any such account needs to satisfy are identified, and two different approaches are presented, the second one of which satisfactorily meets all desired properties. The approach is based on the author’s previous work on defeasible logics.
KeywordsNon-Monotonic Logic Default Rules Defeasible Inference Models of Inquiry
- Gabbay, D. (1985). Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In K. R. Apt (Ed.), Logics and models of concurrent systems (pp. 439–457). New York: Springer. ISBN 0-387-15181-8, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=101969.101988.
- Hintikka, J. (1988). What is the logic of experimental inquiry? Synthése, 74, 173–190.Google Scholar
- Hintikka, J., Halonen, I., & Mutanen, A. (2002). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In R. H. Johnson & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of practical reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Makinson, D. (1994). General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, (Vol. 3, pp. 35–110). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853747-6, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=186124.186126.
- Reiter, R. (1987). A logic for default reasoning. In M. L. Ginsberg (Ed.), Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 68–93). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 0-934613-45-1, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=42641.42646.
- Stalnaker, R. (1994). What is a nonmonotonic consequence relation? Fundamenta Informaticae, 21(1, 2), 7–21. ISSN 0169-2968, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2383424.2383425.