Logic has its roots in the study of valid argument, but while traditional logicians worked with natural language directly, modern approaches first translate natural arguments into an artificial language. The reason for this step is that some artificial languages now have very well developed inferential systems. There is no doubt that this is a great advantage in general, but for the study of natural reasoning it is a drawback that the original linguistic forms get lost in translation. An alternative approach (...) would be to develop a general theory of the natural logic behind human reasoning and human information processing by studying formal logics that operate directly on linguistic representations. That this is possible we will try to make plausible in this paper. It will turn out that one level of representation, that of Logical Form, can meaningfully be identified with the language of an existing and well-understood logic, a restricted form of the theory of types. It is not difficult to devise inference systems for this language, and it is thus possible to study reasoning systems that are based directly on language. (shrink)

1 Logic in philosophy The century that was Logic has played an important role in modern philosophy, especially, in alliances with philosophical schools such as the Vienna Circle, neopositivism, or formal language variants of analytical philosophy. The original impact was via the work of Frege, Russell, and other pioneers, backed up by the prestige of research into the foundations of mathematics, which was fast bringing to light those amazing insights that still impress us to-day. The Golden Age of the 1930s (...) deeply affected philosophy, and heartened the minority of philosophers with a formalanalytical bent. As Brand Blanshard writes in Reason and Analysis (1964) – I quote from memory here, to avoid the usual disappointment when re-reading an original text. (shrink)

This is an examination of similarities and differences between Atocha Aliseda’s semantic tableaux analysis of abduction and Dov Gabbay’s and the present author’s ignorance-preservation model of it. Also discussed is the suitability of these models for the analysis of the logical structure of legal reasoning.

In this paper we explore a generalization of traditional abduction which can simultaneously perform two different tasks: given an unprovable sequent Γ ⊢ G, find a sentence H such that Γ, H ⊢ G is provable ; given a provable sequent Γ ⊢ G, find a sentence H such that Γ ⊢ H and the proof of Γ, H ⊢ G is simpler than the proof of Γ ⊢ G . We argue that the two tasks should not be distinguished, (...) and present a general procedure for finding suitable hypotheses or lemmas. When the original sequent is provable, the abduced formula can be seen as a cut formula with respect to Gentzen's sequent calculus, so the abduction method is cut-based. Our method is based on the tableau-like system KE and we argue for its advantages over existing abduction methods based on traditional Smullyan-style Tableaux. (shrink)

This is an examination of similarities and differences between two recent models of abductive reasoning. The one is developed in Atocha Aliseda’s Abductive Reasoning: Logical Investigations into the Processes of Discovery and Evaluation (2006). The other is advanced by Dov Gabbay and the present author in their The Reach of Abduction: Insight and Trial (2005). A principal difference between the two approaches is that in the Gabbay-Woods model, but not in the Aliseda model, abductive inference is ignorance-preserving. A further differ-ence (...) is that Aliseda reconstructs the abduction relation in a semantic tableaux environment, whereas the Woods-Gabbay model, while less systematic, is more general. Of particular note is the connection between abduction and legal reasoning. (shrink)

When someone is asked to speak his mind, it is sometimes possible for him to furnish what his utterance appears to have omitted. In such cases we might say that he had a mind to speak. Sometimes, however, the opposite is true. Asked to speak his mind, our speaker finds that he has no mind to speak. When it is possible to speak one's mind and when not is largely determined by the kinds of beings we are and by the (...) kinds of resources we are able to draw upon. In either case, not speaking one's mind is leaving something out whose articulation would or could matter for the purposes for which one was speaking in the first place. Inarticulation is no fleetingly contingent and peripheral phenomenon in human thinking and discourse. It is a substantial and dominant commonplace. In Part One I attempt to say something about what it is about the human agent that makes inarticulateness so rife. In Part Two, I consider various strategies for making the unarticulated explicit, and certain constraints on such processes. I shall suggest, among other things, that standard treatments of enthymematic reconstruction are fundamentally misconceived. (shrink)

Traditional abduction imposes as a precondition the restriction that the background information may not derive the goal data. In first-order logic such precondition is, in general, undecidable. To avoid such problem, we present a first-order cut-based abduction method, which has KE-tableaux as its underlying inference system. This inference system allows for the automation of non-analytic proofs in a tableau setting, which permits a generalization of traditional abduction that avoids the undecidable precondition problem. After demonstrating the correctness of the method, we (...) show how this method can be dynamically iterated in a process that leads to the construction of non-analytic first-order proofs and, in some terminating cases, to refutations as well. (shrink)