Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nonmonotonic reasoning’

7th eColloq on Argumentation
Thursday April 11, 4-6 pm GMT+1  (Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm)
 
PROGRAM
4.00-4.10 Connect, Welcome
 
4.10-4:35 Bart Verheij (Groningen, The Netherlands):
Defeasible rule-based arguments with a logico-probabilistic foundation
 
Abstract: A theory of defeasible arguments is proposed that combines logical and probabilistic properties. This logico-probabilistic argumentation theory builds on two foundational theories of nonmonotonic reasoning and uncertainty: the study of nonmonotonic consequence relations (and the associated minimal model semantics) and probability theory. A key result is that, in the theory, qualitatively defined argument validity can be derived from a quantitative interpretation. The theory provides a synthetic perspective of arguments `jumping to conclusions’, rules with exceptions, and probabilities. The approach is compared to Pollock’s computational model of argumentation OSCAR, designed on the basis of his well-developed positions concerning the relations between argumentation, logic and probability. In contrast with Pollock’s OSCAR, the present approach is compatible with the standard probability calculus.
 
4:35-4:50 Discussion
 
4:50-5:00 Break
 
5:00-5:25 Emmanuel J. Genot (Lund University, Sweden):
The Myth of a Confirmation Bias (Arguments for a better argumentative theory of reasoning)
 
Abstract: Wason, confronted with an apparent instance of the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent in his empirical Selection Task, hypothesized a “Confirmation Bias” (CB) to be responsible for subjects’ selections [4]. When Bayesian rational analysis of the selection task (RAST, [3]) substituted a richer probabilistic semantics to Wason’s truth-functional semantics, subjects’ selection emerged as being vindicated, and evidence for CB (in fact, any bias) vanished. Relevance Theorists later produced data that Bayesian models could not accommodate [1], yet without exhibiting evidence for biases of any sort. However, Relevance Theory has more recently been superseded by the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR, [2]), in which CB has returned with a vengeance, backed by an evolutionary narrative that pits “argumentative” and “logical” competences against one another. I will argue that this narrative is a remnant of the same truncated view of logic (and semantics) that informed Wason’s theorizing, but that argumentation-theoretic considerations are necessary to account for the data. To support this view, I will present a generalization of RAST that accounts for both standard and non-standard cases of ST (resp. from [3, 4] and [1]) once argumentative goals are “factored in,” but with an underlying semantics that undermines the very idea of “logical competence”—without which the CB is but a myth.
 
Girotto, Kemmelmeier, Sperber & van der Henst. “Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task”, Cognition, 2001, 81, B69-B7
Mercier & Sperber, Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2011, 34, 57-74.
Oaksford & Chater. A Rational Analysis of the Selection Task as Optimal Data Selection. Psychological Review, 1994, 101, 608-631
Wason, Reasoning About a Rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 20, 273-281
 
5:25-5:40 Discussion
 
Discussants (preliminary list)
Nir Oren (University of Aberdeen, UK)
David Hitchcock (McMasters, Canada)
Thomas Gordon (Berlin, Germany)
Jean Goodwin (Iowa State, USA)
Iowan Drehe (University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
Sune Holm Petersen (Copenhagen University, Denmark)
Steven Patterson (Marygrove College, Detroit, USA)
Sarah Uckelman (Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg, Germany)
Marcin Lewinski (New University of Lisbon, Portugal)
Thomas Fischer (University of Houston, Texas, USA)
 
PARTICPATION
To participate as a discussant (just “sitting in” is in fact fine!), please review the links under “TechThings” at the above website (to test your hardware) and contact the organizer at frank.zenker@fil.lu.se.
 
ORGANIZER
Frank Zenker
Department of Philosophy & Cognitive Science
Kungshuset, Lundagård, 222 22 Lund, Sweden

Read Full Post »

Fourth International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction

Submission deadline: Saturday, June 1 2013

Conference date(s):
Wednesday, October 9 2013 – Saturday, October 12 2013

Center for the Study of Language and Cognition, Zhejiang University

Hangzhou, China

The LORI workshop series aims at bringing together researchers working on a wide variety of logic-related fields concerned with the understanding of rationality and interaction. These include Game Theory and Decision Theory, Philosophy and Epistemology, Linguistics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. The series aims at fostering a view of Logic as an interdisciplinary endeavor, and supports the creation of a Chinese community of interdisciplinary researchers.

We invite submissions of contributed papers bearing on any of the broad themes of the LORI workshop series. More specific topics of interest for this edition include but are not limited to: (more…)

Read Full Post »

The biennial Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change (NRAC) is an established workshop with an active and loyal community. Since its inception in 1995, it has always been held in conjunction with IJCAI, each time with growing success. We invite submissions of research papers for presentation at NRAC 2013, a one-day workshop to be held in Beijing, China as part of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-13) workshop program.

An intelligent agent exploring a rich, dynamic world needs cognitive capabilities in addition to basic functionalities for perception and reaction. The abilities to reason non-monotonically, to reason about actions and to change one’s beliefs, have been identified as fundamental high-level cognitive functions necessary for common sense. Research in all three areas has made significant progress during the last two decades of the past century. It is, however, crucial to bear in mind the common goal of designing intelligent agents. Researchers should be aware of advances in all three fields since often advances in one field can be translated into advances in another. Many deep relationships have already been established. This workshop has the specific aim of promoting cross-fertilisation. The interaction fostered by the biannual NRAC workshops has helped to facilitate solutions to the frame problem, ramification problem and other crucial issues on the research agenda. (more…)

Read Full Post »