Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Blended Cognition pp 275–302Cite as

Toward a Logic of Everyday Reasoning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems ((SSCNS,volume 12))

Abstract

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Now the “function” is usually called “predicate”, though it should not be confused with the “predicate term” in term logic, since they are very different in major aspects.

  2. 2.

    Please note that “axiomatic logic” does not mean that all the inference rules of the logic are derived from some axioms. Axiomatization at the meta-level (among inference rules) is not the same as that at the object-level (among domain knowledge).

  3. 3.

    This usage does not suggest that such a term will have the same meaning as what the word means to an English speaker, but that their meanings have overlap to certain extent.

  4. 4.

    At https://github.com/opennars/opennars/

References

  • Adams EW (1998) A primer of probability logic. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JR (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AR, Belnap ND (1975) Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1882) The organon, or, logical treatises of Aristotle. George Bell, London. Translated by O. F. Owen

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1989) Prior analytics. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. Translated by R. Smith

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2005) Metaphysics. NuVision Publications, LLC. Translated by W. D. Ross

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J, Etchemendy J (1989) Model-theoretic semantics. In: Posner MI (ed) Foundations of cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 207–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum L (1991) Rigor mortis: a response to Nilsson’s “Logic and artificial intelligence”. Artif Intell 47:57–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocheński IM (1970) A history of formal logic. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York. Translated and edited by I. Thomas

    Google Scholar 

  • Braine MDS, O’Brien DP (eds) (1998) Mental logic. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Bringsjord S (2008) The logicist manifesto: at long last let logic-based artificial intelligence become a field unto itself. J Appl Logic 6(4):502–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherniak C (1986) Minimal rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum EA, Feldman J (1963) Computers and thought. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1879

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay DM (2007) Logic for artificial intelligence and information technology. College Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay DM, Woods J (2001) The new logic. Log J IGPL 9(2):141–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaifman H (2004) Reasoning with limited resources and assigning probabilities to arithmetical statements. Synthese 140:97–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) (2002) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertzel B (2009) Cognitive synergy: a universal principle for feasible general intelligence? Dynamical psychology. An online journal. http://goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2009/CognitiveSynergy.pdf

  • Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) (2007) Artificial general intelligence. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertzel B, Iklé M, Goertzel IF, Heljakka A (2008) Probabilistic logic networks: a comprehensive framework for uncertain inference. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Good IJ (1983) Good thinking: the foundations of probability and its applications. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayling AC (2001) An introduction to philosophical logic, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 43–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack S (1978) Philosophy of logics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haack S (1996) Deviant logic, fuzzy logic: beyond the formalism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):213–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 160–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna R (2006) Rationality and logic. Bradford books. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes PJ (1977) In defense of logic. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 559–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes PJ (1979) The naïve physics manifesto. In: Michie D (ed) Expert systems in the micro-electronic age. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 242–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel CG (1943) A purely syntactical definition of confirmation. J Symb Log 8:122–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://plato.stanford.edu/

  • Hume D (1977) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird P (1983) Mental models. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh D (1991) Foundations of AI: the big issues. Artif Intell 47:3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneale W, Kneale M (1962) The development of logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski R (1979) Logic for problem solving. North Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg HE (1970) Probability and inductive logic. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat DB (1995) CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun ACM 38(11):33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J (1988) Mathematical logic in artificial intelligence. Dædalus 117(1):297–311

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J (1989) Artificial intelligence, logic and formalizing common sense. In: Thomason RH (ed) Philosophical logic and artificial intelligence. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 161–190

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott D (1987) A critique of pure reason. Comput Intell 3:151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 218–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague R (1970) Universal grammar. Theoria 36(3):373–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson NJ (1986) Probabilistic logic. Artif Intell 28:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson NJ (1991) Logic and artificial intelligence. Artif Intell 47:31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce CS (1931) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest G, Routley R, Norman J (eds) (1989) Paraconsistent logic: essays on the inconsistent. Philosophia Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter R (1987) Nonmonotonic reasoning. Ann Rev Comput Sci 2:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell S, Norvig P (2010) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell S, Wefald EH (1991) Do the right thing: studies in limited rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder-Heister P (2006) Validity concepts in proof-theoretic semantics. Synthese 148:525–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkrüger P (2015) Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic and modern relevance logic. Synthese 192:1413–1444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenning K, van Lambalgen M (2008) Human reasoning and cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind LIX:433–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vila L (1994) A survey on temporal reasoning in artificial intelligence. AI Commun 7(1):4–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (1995) Non-axiomatic reasoning system: exploring the essence of intelligence. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 352–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2004a) The limitation of Bayesianism. Artif Intell 158(1):97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 83–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2005) Experience-grounded semantics: a theory for intelligent systems. Cogn Syst Res 6(4):282–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2006) Rigid flexibility: the logic of intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2008) What do you mean by ‘AI’. In: Proceedings of the First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, pp 362–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2009) Formalization of evidence: a comparative study. J Artif General Intell 1:25–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2011) The assumptions on knowledge and resources in models of rationality. Int J Mach Conscious 3(1):193–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2013) Non-axiomatic logic: a model of intelligent reasoning. World Scientific, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang P, Hofstadter D (2006) A logic of categorization. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 18(2):193–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 140–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason PC, Johnson-Laird PN (1972) Psychology of reasoning: structure and content. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead AN, Russell B (1910) Principia mathematica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson J (2007) Causality. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 14. Springer, New York, pp 95–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RA, Keil FC (eds) (1999) The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1983) The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:199–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Pei Wang

Authors
  1. Pei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pei Wang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain

    Jordi Vallverdú

  2. American College of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Vincent C. Müller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG (outside the USA)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wang, P. (2019). Toward a Logic of Everyday Reasoning. In: Vallverdú, J., Müller, V. (eds) Blended Cognition. Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03104-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation