Adaptive Logics for Non-Explanatory and Explanatory Diagnostic Reasoning
In this paper we discuss diagnosis of faults in systems. The latter are understood as structured wholes of components. Three types of diagnosis can be distinguished and are defined: non-explanatory, weak explanatory and strong explanatory. After the analysis of the reasoning process that leads to non-explanatory diagnosis, we argue that the predicative adaptive logic D* is an adequate tool for modeling this kind of diagnostic reasoning. Subsequently, we follow the same pattern for weak and strong diagnosis and describe the logic D* which adequately formalizes weak diagnostic reasoning, even when underlying theoretical knowledge is taken into account. Finally it is argued that the same logic can be applied in the case of strong diagnostic reasoning whenever a number of conditions are fulfilled.
KeywordsCond RiCid Argum Ents
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Batens, D., 2000, A survey of inconsistency-adaptive logics, in: Frontiers of Paracon-sistent Logic, D. Batens, C. Mortensen, G. Priest, and J.P. Van Bendegem, eds., Kings College Publications, London, pp. 49–73.Google Scholar
- Batens, D., 1998, Inconsistency-adaptive logics, in: Logic at Work. Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, E. Orłowska, ed., Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 445–472.Google Scholar
- Batens, D., Meheus, J., Provijn, D., and Verhoeven, L., Some adaptive logics for diagnosis (to appear).Google Scholar
- Meheus, J., Erotetic arguments from inconsistent premises (to appear).Google Scholar
- Weber, E. and De Clercq, K., 2002, Why the logic of explanation is inconsistencyadaptive, in: Inconsistency in Science, J. Meheus, ed., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 165–184.Google Scholar
- Weber, E. and Provijn, D., A formal analysis of diagnosis and diagnostic reasoning, Logique & Analyse (in print).Google Scholar