A QBF-based Formalization of Abstract Argumentation Semantics

Supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project).Peer reviewedPostprin

Transcendental Logic Redefined

Traditionally transcendental logic has been set apart from formal logic. Transcendental logic had to deal with the conditions of possibility of judgements, which were presupposed by formal logic. Defined as a purely philosophical enterprise transcendental logic was considered as being a priori delivering either analytic or even synthetic a priori results. In this paper it is argued that this separation from the (empirical) cognitive sciences should be given up. Transcendental logic should be understood as focusing on specific questions. These do not, as some recent analytic philosophy has it, include a refutation of scepticism. And they are not to be separated from meta-logical investigations. Transcendental logic properly understood, and redefined along these theses, should concern itself with the (formal) re-construction of the presupposed necessary conditions and rules of linguistic communication in general. It aims at universality and reflexive closure

Real Islamic Logic

Four options for assigning a meaning to Islamic Logic are surveyed including a new proposal for an option named "Real Islamic Logic" (RIL). That approach to Islamic Logic should serve modern Islamic objectives in a way comparable to the functionality of Islamic Finance. The prospective role of RIL is analyzed from several perspectives: (i) parallel distributed systems design, (ii) reception by a community structured audience, (iii) informal logic and applied non-classical logics, and (iv) (in)tractability and artificial intelligence

Belief revision and computational argumentation: a critical comparison

This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reason ing they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and on the other hand pointing out open issues and potential directions for future research.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Inconsistency and Incompleteness in Relational Databases and Logic Programs

The aim of this thesis is to study the role played by negation in databases and to develop data models that can handle inconsistent and incomplete information. We develop models that also allow incompleteness through disjunctive information under both the CWA and the OWA in relational databases. In the area of logic programming, extended logic programs allow explicit representation of negative information. As a result, a number of extended logic programs have an inconsistent semantics. We present a translation of extended logic programs to normal logic programs that is more tolerant to inconsistencies. Extended logic programs have also been used widely in order to compute the repairs of an inconsistent database. We present some preliminary ideas on how source information can be incorporated into the repair program in order to produce a subset of the set of all repairs based on a preference for certain sources over others

Argumentation Schemes and Communities of Argumentational Practice

Is it possible to distinguish communities of arguers by tracking the argumentation schemes they employ? There are many ways of relating schemes to communities, but not all are productive. Attention must be paid not only to the admissibility of schemes within a community of argumentational practice, but also to their comparative frequency. Two examples are discussed: informal mathematics, a convenient source of well-documented argumentational practice, and anthropological evidence of non-standard reasoning

A Yabloesque paradox in epistemic game theory

The Brandenburger–Keisler paradox is a self-referential paradox in epistemic game theory which can be viewed as a two-person version of Russell’s Paradox. Yablo’s Paradox, according to its author, is a non-self referential paradox, which created a significant impact. This paper gives a Yabloesque, non-self-referential paradox for infinitary players within the context of epistemic game theory. The new paradox advances both the Brandenburger–Keisler and Yablo results. Additionally, the paper constructs a paraconsistent model satisfying the paradoxical statement