Abstract
In this paper, we propose a reconstruction of logic-based approaches to abductive reasoning in terms of ampliative adaptive logics. A main advantage of this reconstruction is that the resulting logics have a proof theory. As abductive reasoning is non-monotonic, the latter is necessarily dynamic (conclusions derived at some stage may at a later stage be rejected). The proof theory warrants, however, that the conclusions derived at a given stage are justified in view of the insight in the premises at that stage. Thus, it even leads to justified conclusions for undecidable fragments. Another advantage of the proposed logics is that they are much closer to natural reasoning than the existing systems. Usually, abduction is viewed as a form of “backward reasoning”. The search procedure by which this is realized (for instance, some form of linear linear resolution) is very different from the search procedures of human reasoners. The proposed logics treat abduction as a form of “forward reasoning” (Modus Ponens in the “wrong direction”). As a result, abductive steps are very natural, and are moreover nicely integrated with deductive steps. We present two new adaptive logics for abduction, and illustrate both with some examples from the history of the sciences (the discovery of Uranus and of Neptune). We also present some alternative systems that are better suited for non-creative forms of abductive reasoning.
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.
References
Aliseda, A., 1997, Seeking Explanations: Abduction in Logic, Philosophy of Science and Artifical Intelligence, PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Batens, D., 1989, Dynamic dialectical logics, in: Paraconsistent Logic. Essays on the Inconsistent, G. Priest, R. Routley, and J. Norman, eds., Philosophia Verlag, München, pp. 187–217.
Batens, D., 1999, Zero logic adding up to classical logic, Logical Studies, 2:15, (Electronic Journal: http://www.logic.ru/LogStud/02/LS2.html).
Batens, D., 2000, Towards the unification of inconsistency handling mechanisms, Logic and Logical Philosophy 8:5–31, appeared in 2002.
Batens, D., 200+, On a logic for induction, to appear.
Batens, D., De Clercq, K., and Vanackere, G., 2004+a, Simplified dynamic proof formats for adaptive logics, to appear.
Batens, D., and Meheus, J., 2000, The adaptive logic of compatibility, Studia Logica 66:327–348.
Batens, D., Meheus, J., Provijn, D., and Verhoeven, L., 200+b, Some adaptive logics for diagnosis, Logique et Analyse, in print.
Batens, D., and Vermeir, T., 200+, Direct dynamic proofs for the Rescher-Manor consequence relations: The flat case, to appear.
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., and Prade, H., 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, S., Dubois, D., and Prade, H., 1999, Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study. Part 2: The prioritized case, in: Logic at Work. Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, E. Orłowska, ed., Physica Verlag (Springer), Heidelberg, New York, pp. 473–511.
Brown, B., 1990, How to be realistic about inconsistency in science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21:281–294.
da Costa, N.C.A. and French, S., 2002, Inconsistency in science. A partial perspective, in: J. Meheus [Meheus, ed., 2002], pp. 105–118.
D’Hanis, I., 2002, A logical approach to the analysis of metaphors, this volume.
Hintikka, J., 1998, What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34:503–533.
Kuhn, T.S., 1977, The Essential Tension, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Magnani, L., 2001, Abduction, Reason, and Science. Processes of Discovery and Explanation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Meheus, J., 1993, Adaptive logic in scientific discovery: The case of Clausius, Logique et Analyse 143-144:359–389, appeared in 1996.
Meheus, J., 1999a, Deductive and ampliative adaptive logics as tools in the study of creativity, Foundations of Science 4.3:325–336.
Meheus, J., 1999b, Clausius’ discovery of the first two laws of thermodynamics. A paradigm of reasoning from inconsistencies, Philosophica 63:89–117, appeared in 2001.
Meheus, J., 2000, An extremely rich paraconsistent logic and the adaptive logic based on it, in: Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic, D. Batens, C. Mortensen, G. Priest, and J.P. Van Bendegem, eds., Research Studies Press, Baldock, pp. 189–201.
Meheus, J., ed., 2002, Inconsistency in Science, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Meheus, J., 200+a, Inconsistencies and the dynamics of science, Logic and Logical Philosophy, in print.
Meheus, J., 200+b, An adaptive logic based on Jaśkowski’s D2, to appear.
Meheus, J., 200+c, Inconsistencies in scientific discovery. Clausius’s remarkable derivation of Carnot’s theorem, in: History of Modern Physics, G. Van Paemel et al., eds., Brepols, in print.
Meheus, J., 200+d, An adaptive logic for pragmatic truth, in: Paraconsistency. The Logical Way to the Inconsistent, W.A. Carnielli, M.E. Coniglio, and I.M.L. D’Ottaviano, eds., Marcel Dekker, in print.
Meheus, J., 200+e, Empirical progress and ampliative adaptive logics, to appear.
Meheus, J. and De Clercq, K., 200+, Dynamic proof theories for erotetic inferences, Logique et Analyse, to appear.
Nersessian, N.J., 2002, Inconsistency, generic modeling, and conceptual change in science, in: J. Meheus [Meheus, ed., 2002], pp. 197–211.
Norton, J., 1987, The logical inconsistency of the old quantum theory of black body radiation, Philosophy of Science 54:327–350.
Norton, J., 1993, A paradox in Newtonian gravitation theory, PSA 1992 2, pp. 421–430.
Paul, G., 2000, AI approaches to abduction, in: Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Volume 4: Abductive Reasoning and learning, D.M. Gabbay and P. Smets, eds., Springer Science+Business Media New York, Dordrecht, pp. 35–98.
Priest, G., 1991, Minimally inconsistent LP, Studia Logica 50:321–331.
Rescher, N. and Manor, R., 1970, On inference from inconsistent premises, Theory and Decision 1:179–217.
Smith, J., 1988, Inconsistency and scientific reasoning, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19:429–445.
Thagard, P., 1988, Computational Philosophy of Science, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.
Thagard, P., 1999, How Scientists Explain Disease, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Verhoeven, L., 200+, Proof theories for some prioritized consequence relations, to appear.
Vermeir, T., 200+, Two ampliative adaptive logics for the closed world assumption, to appear.
Weber, E. and Provijn, D., 200+, A formal analysis of diagnosis and diagnostic reasoning, Logique et Analyse, to appear.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meheus, J., Verhoeven, L., Van Dyck, M., Provijn, D. (2002). Ampliative Adaptive Logics and the Foundation of Logic-Based Approaches to Abduction. In: Magnani, L., Nersessian, N.J., Pizzi, C. (eds) Logical and Computational Aspects of Model-Based Reasoning. Applied Logic Series, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0550-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0550-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0791-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0550-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive