Advertisement

Pragmatic Reasoning

A Model-Based Theory
  • John Bell
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 247)

Abstract

Deductive reasoning is concerned with valid inference — with what follows from the premises regardless of the context in which they occur. Deductive reasoning is thus context-free and certain. In particular, it is monotonic, as conclusions are not affected by additional premises. By contrast, pragmatic reasoning is concerned with what follows from the premises in a given context. If the context changes, the pragmatic conclusions may change also. Pragmatic reasoning is thus context-dependent. Consider the following argument
  • I am Bill Clinton.

  • Bill Clinton is the President of the U.S.A.

  • Therefore I am the President of the U.S.A.

Keywords

Causal Theory Deductive Reasoning Atomic Proposition Proof Theory Pragmatic Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avron, A.: 1988, “Foundations and proof theory of 3-valued logics”, LFCS Report Series, ECS-LFCS-88–48, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and Perry, J.: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J.: 1993, “Everyday reasoning and logical inference”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16(2), pp. 337–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, J.: 1988, “Predictive conditionals, nonmonotonicity and reasoning about the future”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of EssexGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, J.: 1990, “Why the frame problem is not a problem”, AI Communications (3) 1, pp. 3–10Google Scholar
  6. Bell, J.: 1991a, “Extended causal theories”, Artificial Intelligence 48, pp. 211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, J.: 1991b, “Pragmatic Logics”, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Cambridge Massachusetts, J. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (eds), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, pp. 50–60Google Scholar
  8. Bell, J.: 1992a, “A model-based approach to predictive causal reasoning”, to appear in: P. Doherty and D. Driankov (eds), Partiality, Modality, and Nonmonotonicity, Proceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Partial Semantics and Nonmonotonic Reasoning for Knowledge Representation, Iinköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell, J.: 1992b, “Pragmatic Logics”. Revised, extended version of (Bell, 1991b), manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell, J.: 1993a, “Changing Attitudes”, Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Reasoning About Mental States; Formal Theories and Applications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell, J.: 1993b, “Problems and principles of commonsense causal reasoning”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Reasoning About Action and Change, II-CAI’93, Chambéry, France.Google Scholar
  12. van Benthem, J.: 1984, “Partiality and nonmonotonicity in classical logic”, CSLI Report CSLI-84–12, Center for the Study of Language and Information, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  13. van Benthem, J.: 1991a, The Logic of Time, 2nd Edition, D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. van Benthem, J.: 1991b, “Natural language: from knowledge to cognition”, in: E. Klein and F. Veltman (eds), Natural Language and Speech, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, F.M. (ed.): 1987, The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, K.L.: 1978, “Negation as failure”, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds), Logic and Databases, Plenum, New York, pp. 293–322Google Scholar
  17. Clarke, E.M. and Grümberg, O.: 1987, “Research on automatic verification and finite-state concurrent systems”, in: J. Traub et al. (eds), Annual Review of Computer Science Vol 2, Annual Reviews Inc., pp. 269–289Google Scholar
  18. Etherington, D.W., Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J. and Kautz, H.: 1989, “Vivid knowledge and tractable reasoning: preliminary report”, Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, Michigan, N.S. Shridharan (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, pp. 1146–1152Google Scholar
  19. Gärdenfors, P.: 1988, Knowledge in Flux, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, S.: 1993, “Further investigations in model-based causal reasoning”, M.Sc. Project Report, Computer Science Department, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.Google Scholar
  21. Grice, H.P.: 1975, Logic and conversation, in: P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grice, H.P.: 1978, “Further notes on logic and conversation”, in: P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Halpern, J. and Vardi, M.: 1991, “Model Checking vs. Theorem Proving: A Manifesto”, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Cambridge Massachusetts, J. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (eds), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 325–334.Google Scholar
  24. Hodges, W.: 1993, “The logical content of theories of deduction”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2), pp. 353–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson-Laird, P.N.: 1983, Mental Models Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson-Laird, P.N. and Byrne, R.M. J.: 1991, Deduction, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Kautz, H.A. and Selman, B.: 1989, “Hard problems for simple default logics”, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the First International Conference, Toronto, Canada, R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque and R. Reiter (eds), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 189–197.Google Scholar
  28. Kleene, S.C.: 1952, Introduction to Metamathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Konolige, K.: 1986, A Deduction Model of Belief Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
  30. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D. and Magidor, M.: 1990, “Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics”, Artificial Intelligence 44, pp. 167–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levinson, S.C.: 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Levesque, H.J.: 1986, “Making believers out of computers”, Artificial Intelligence 30, pp. 81–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, D.: 1969, “Convention; A Philosophical Study”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis, D.: 1979, “Scorekeeping in a Language Game”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, pp. 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manek, P.: 1992, “A model-building approach to causal reasoning”, M.Sc. Project Report, Computer Science Department, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.Google Scholar
  36. McCarthy, J.: 1980, “Circumscription: a form of non-monotonic reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P.: 1969, “Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of Artificial Intelligence”, in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds), Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 436–502Google Scholar
  38. McDermott, D.: 1978, “Tarskian Semantics, or No Notation without Denotation!”, Cognitive Science 2(3), pp. 277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minsky, M.: 1975, “A framework for representing knowledge”, in: P. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Montague, R.: 1974, “Pragmatics”, in: R. H. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy; Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 95–118Google Scholar
  41. Moore, R.C.: 1983, “Semantical considerations on non-monotonic logic”, Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany, A. Bundy (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Caifornia, pp. 272–279Google Scholar
  42. Reiter, R.: 1980, “A logic for default reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 81–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schank, R. and Abelson, R.: 1977, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  44. Selman, B. and Kautz, H.A.: 1990, “Model-preference default theories”, Artificial Intelligence 45, pp. 287–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shoham, Y.: 1987, “Nonmonotonic logics: meaning and utility”, Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan, Italy, J. McDermott (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, pp. 388–393.Google Scholar
  46. Shoham, Y.: 1988, Reasoning About Change, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  47. Stalnaker, R.C.: 1968, “A theory of conditionals”, in: N. Rescher (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  48. Stalnaker, R.C.: 1972, “Pragmatics”, in: D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds), Semantics of Natural Languages, D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Stalnaker, R.C.: 1973, “Presuppositions”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, pp. 447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stalnaker, R.C.: 1984, Inquiry, MIT Press, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  51. Stalnaker, R.C.: 1993, “A note on non-monotonic modal logic”, Artificial Intelligence 64, pp. 183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thijse, E.: 1992, Partial Logic and Knowledge Representation, Ph.D. Thesis, Catholic University of Brabant, Eburon Publishers, Delft.Google Scholar
  53. Thomason, R.H.: 1977, “Where Pragmatics Fits in”, in: A. Rogers, B. Wall and J.P. Murphy (eds), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implication, Washington Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington.Google Scholar
  54. Thomason, R.H.: 1990, “Accommodation, Meaning and Implicature: Interdisciplinary Foundations for Pragmatics”, in: P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M.E. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, pp. 325–364Google Scholar
  55. Veltman, F.: 1981, Data Semantics, in: J. Groenendijk et. al (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  56. Wilkins, D.: 1988, Practical Planning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Bell
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Logic Group, Computer Science Department, Queen Mary and Westfield CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations