Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of the Talmudic Argumentum A Fortiori Inference Rule (Kal Vachomer) using Matrix Abduction

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We motivate and introduce a new method of abduction, Matrix Abduction, and apply it to modelling the use of non-deductive inferences in the Talmud such as Analogy and the rule of Argumentum A Fortiori. Given a matrix \({\mathbb {A}}\) with entries in {0, 1}, we allow for one or more blank squares in the matrix, say a i,j =?. The method allows us to decide whether to declare a i,j = 0 or a i,j = 1 or a i,j =? undecided. This algorithmic method is then applied to modelling several legal and practical reasoning situations including the Talmudic rule of Kal-Vachomer. We add an Appendix showing that this new rule of Matrix Abduction, arising from the Talmud, can also be applied to the analysis of paradoxes in voting and judgement aggregation. In fact we have here a general method for executing non-deductive inferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abraham, M., D. M. Gabbay, and U. Schild, Paper 340 Kal-Vachomer in Hebrew, BDD Journal, Bar Ilan University, 112 pages.

  2. Barker S., Boella G., Gabbay D.M., Genovese V.: ‘A Meta-model of Access Control in a Fibred Security Language’. Studia Logica 92, 437–476 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barringer, H., D. M. Gabbay, and J. Woods, ‘Temporal dynamics of argumentation networks’, in D. Hutter and W. Stephan (eds.), Mechanising Mathematical Reasoning, LNCS 2605, Springer, 2005, pp. 59–98.

  4. Becker, M. Y., J. F. Mackay, and B. Dillaway, ‘Abductive Authorization Credential Gathering. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/80508/becker2009ieee-policysubmission. pdf

  5. Besnard, P., and A. B. Hunter, Elements of Argumentation, MIT Press, 2008, 300 pages.

  6. Boella G., Gabbay D.M., Genovese V., van der Torre L.: ‘Fibred Security Language’. Studia Logica 92, 395–436 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brams, S. J., D. M. Kilgour, and W. S. Zwicker, ‘The paradox of multiple elections’, Social Choice and Welfare 15: 211–236, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Caminada, M. W. A., and L. Amgoud, ‘On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms’, Artificial Intelligence 171 (5–6): 286–310, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, Phan Minh, ‘An argumentation theoretic foundation for logic programming, Journal of Logic Programming 22 (2): 151–171, 1995.

  10. Fisch, M., Rational Rabbis: Science and Talmudic Culture, Indiana University Press, Bloomignton, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gabbay, D. M., Labelled Deductive Systems, OUP, 1996.

  12. Gabbay, D. M., and A. Garcez, ‘Logical modes of attack in argumentation networks’. To appear in Studia Logica.

  13. Gabbay, D. M., and J. Woods, The Reach of Abduction, Elsevier, 2005.

  14. Gabbay, D.M., and J.Woods, ‘Resource origins of non-monotonicity’, Studia Logica 88: 85–112, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grabenhorst, T. K., Das Argumentum A Fortiori, Peter Lang, 1990.

  16. Hartmann, S., G. Pigozzi, and J. Sprenger, ‘Reliable methods of judgement aggregation’, Draft, 23 February 2009.

  17. Hasan, A., Analogical reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence, 1986, Republished Adam Publishers, 2007, 486 pages.

  18. Jacobs, L., Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology, London, Vallentine-Mitchell, 1061. Republished paperback, 2006.

  19. Kamali, M. H., Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Islamic Text Society, 3rd Revised Eition, 2002, 550 pages.

  20. Kornhauser L., Sager L.: ‘Unpacking the court’. Yale Law Journal 96, 82–117 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kornhauser L., Sager L.: ‘The one and the many: adjudication in collegial courts’. California Law Review 81, 1–51 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kunst, A., ‘An overlooked type of inference’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, X, part 4, 1942, pp. 976–991.

  23. Neusner, J., ‘The making of the mind of Judaism; the formative age’, Brown Judaic Studies, vol. 133, Scholars press, Atlanta, 1987.

  24. Pigozzi, G., and L. van der Torre, ‘Premise independence in judgement aggregation’, Dagstuhl Seminar 07531, 2007.

  25. Prakken, H., and G. Sartor, ‘Argument based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schild, U. J., ‘Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 2–4, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schwarz, A., Der Hermeneutische Syllogismus in der Talmudischen, Ltitteratur, Karlsruhe, 1901.

  28. Stebbing, V. L. S., A Modern Introduction to Logic, London, 1945.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    M. Abraham & U. Schild

  2. Department of Computer Science, King’s College, London, UK

    Dov M. Gabbay

Authors
  1. M. Abraham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dov M. Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Schild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dov M. Gabbay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abraham, M., Gabbay, D.M. & Schild, U. Analysis of the Talmudic Argumentum A Fortiori Inference Rule (Kal Vachomer) using Matrix Abduction. Stud Logica 92, 281–364 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9202-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9202-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation