On the Issue of Contraposition of Defeasible Rules
On the Issue of Contraposition of Defeasible Rules
复制标题
论可废止规则的对立问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Martin Wigbertus Antonius Caminada
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Martin Wigbertus Antonius Caminada
在过去的十年里，正式论证的方法多种多样。一个有趣的问题是，这些不同的形式在多大程度上对应于不同的应用程序领域。也就是说，适当的论证形式主义是取决于特定的应用领域，还是“一刀切”。在本文中，我们从一个相对简单的设计考虑的角度来研究这个问题：是否应该存在与可废止规则相反的(或方式)规则。我们的目的是证明，答案取决于一个人是在考虑认识论推理还是构成论推理，因此不同的领域需要根本不同的可废止推理形式。
The past ten years have shown a great variety of approaches for formal argumentation. An interesting question is to which extent these various formalisms correspond to the different application domains. That is, does the appropriate argumentation formalism depend on the particular domain of application, or does “one size fits all”. In this paper, we study this question from the perspective of one relatively simple design consideration: should or should there not be contrapostion of (or modus tollens) on defeasible rules. We aim to show that the answer depends on whether one is considering epistemical or constitutive reasoning, and that hence different domains require fundamentally different forms of defeasible reasoning.