The Problem of Analogical Inference in Inductive Logic

We consider one problem that was largely left open by Rudolf Carnap in his work on inductive logic, the problem of analogical inference. After discussing some previous attempts to solve this problem, we propose a new solution that is based on the ideas of Bruno de Finetti on probabilistic symmetries. We explain how our new inductive logic can be developed within the Carnapian paradigm of inductive logic-deriving an inductive rule from a set of simple postulates about the observational process-and discuss some of its properties.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2015, arXiv:1606.0729

Causal discovery and the problem of ignorance. An adaptive logic approach

AbstractIn this paper, I want to substantiate three related claims regarding causal discovery from non-experimental data. Firstly, in scientific practice, the problem of ignorance is ubiquitous, persistent, and far-reaching. Intuitively, the problem of ignorance bears upon the following situation. A set of random variables V is studied but only partly tested for (conditional) independencies; i.e. for some variables A and B it is not known whether they are (conditionally) independent. Secondly, Judea Pearl's most meritorious and influential algorithm for causal discovery (the IC algorithm) cannot be applied in cases of ignorance. It presupposes that a full list of (conditional) independence relations is on hand and it would lead to unsatisfactory results when applied to partial lists. Finally, the problem of ignorance is successfully treated by means of ALIC, the adaptive logic for causal discovery presented in this paper

Polyteam semantics

Team semantics is the mathematical framework of modern logics of dependence and independence in which formulae are interpreted by sets of assignments (teams) instead of single assignments as in first-order logic. In order to deepen the fruitful interplay between team semantics and database dependency theory, we define Polyteam Semantics in which formulae are evaluated over a family of teams. We begin by defining a novel polyteam variant of dependence atoms and give a finite axiomatization for the associated implication problem. We relate polyteam semantics to team semantics and investigate in which cases logics over the former can be simulated by logics over the latter. We also characterize the expressive power of poly-dependence logic by properties of polyteams that are downwards closed and definable in existential second-order logic (ESO). The analogous result is shown to hold for poly-independence logic and all ESO-definable properties. We also relate poly-inclusion logic to greatest fixed point logic.Peer reviewe

Polyteam Semantics

Team semantics is the mathematical framework of modern logics of dependence and independence in which formulae are interpreted by sets of assignments (teams) instead of single assignments as in first-order logic. In order to deepen the fruitful interplay between team semantics and database dependency theory, we define "Polyteam Semantics" in which formulae are evaluated over a family of teams. We begin by defining a novel polyteam variant of dependence atoms and give a finite axiomatisation for the associated implication problem. We also characterise the expressive power of poly-dependence logic by properties of polyteams that are downward closed and definable in existential second-order logic (ESO). The analogous result is shown to hold for poly-independence logic and all ESO-definable properties.Peer reviewe

Bayesian confirmation, connexivism and an unkindness of ravens

Bayesian confirmation theories (BCTs) might be the best standing theories of confirmation to date, but they are certainly not paradox-free. Here I recognize that BCTs’ appeal mainly comes from the fact that they capture some of our intuitions about confirmation better than those the- ories that came before them and that the superiority of BCTs is suffi- ciently justified by those advantages. Instead, I will focus on Sylvan and Nola’s claim that it is desirable that our best theory of confirmation be as paradox-free as possible. For this reason, I will show that, as they respond to different interests, the project of the BCTs is not incompatible with Sylvan and Nola’s project of a paradox-free confirmation logic. In fact, it will turn out that, provided we are ready to embrace some degree of non-classicality, both projects complement each other nicely