Pushing the bounds of rationality: Argumentation and extended cognition

One of the central tasks of a theory of argumentation is to supply a theory of appraisal: a set of standards and norms according to which argumentation, and the reasoning involved in it, is properly evaluated. In their most general form, these can be understood as rational norms, where the core idea of rationality is that we rightly respond to reasons by according the credence we attach to our doxastic and conversational commitments with the probative strength of the reasons we have for them. Certain kinds of rational failings are so because they are manifestly illogical – for example, maintaining overtly contradictory commitments, violating deductive closure by refusing to accept the logical consequences of one’s present commitments, or failing to track basing relations by not updating one’s commitments in view of new, defeating information. Yet, according to the internal and empirical critiques, logic and probability theory fail to supply a fit set of norms for human reasoning and argument. Particularly, theories of bounded rationality have put pressure on argumentation theory to lower the normative standards of rationality for reasoners and arguers on the grounds that we are bounded, finite, and fallible agents incapable of meeting idealized standards. This paper explores the idea that argumentation, as a set of practices, together with the procedures and technologies of argumentation theory, is able to extend cognition such that we are better able to meet these idealized logical standards, thereby extending our responsibilities to adhere to idealized rational norms

AGM 25 years: twenty-five years of research in belief change

The 1985 paper by Carlos Alchourrón (1931–1996), Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson (AGM), “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions” was the starting-point of a large and rapidly growing literature that employs formal models in the investigation of changes in belief states and databases. In this review, the first twenty five years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in the original framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, computatibility of AGM operations, and criticism of the model.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Dynamic reasoning in a knowledge-based system

Any space based system, whether it is a robot arm assembling parts in space or an onboard system monitoring the space station, has to react to changes which cannot be foreseen. As a result, apart from having domain-specific knowledge as in current expert systems, a space based AI system should also have general principles of change. This paper presents a modal logic which can not only represent change but also reason with it. Three primitive operations, expansion, contraction and revision are introduced and axioms which specify how the knowledge base should change when the external world changes are also specified. Accordingly the notion of dynamic reasoning is introduced, which unlike the existing forms of reasoning, provide general principles of change. Dynamic reasoning is based on two main principles, namely minimize change and maximize coherence. A possible-world semantics which incorporates the above two principles is also discussed. The paper concludes by discussing how the dynamic reasoning system can be used to specify actions and hence form an integral part of an autonomous reasoning and planning system

Classical logic, argument and dialectic

A well studied instantiation of Dung's abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and/or human agents. However, features of existing formalisations of classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) that ensure satisfaction of rationality postulates, preclude applications of Cl-Arg that account for real-world dialectical uses of arguments by resource-bounded agents. This paper formalises dialectical classical logic argumentation that both satisfies these practical desiderata and is provably rational. In contrast to standard approaches to Cl-Arg we: 1) draw an epistemic distinction between an argument's premises accepted as true, and those assumed true for the sake of argument, so formalising the dialectical move whereby arguments\u2019 premises are shown to be inconsistent, and avoiding the foreign commitment problem that arises in dialogical applications; 2) provide an account of Cl-Arg suitable for real-world use by eschewing the need to check that an argument's premises are subset minimal and consistent, and identifying a minimal set of assumptions as to the arguments that must be constructed from a set of formulae in order to ensure that the outcome of evaluation is rational. We then illustrate our approach with a natural deduction proof theory for propositional classical logic that allows measurement of the \u2018depth\u2019 of an argument, such that the construction of depth-bounded arguments is a tractable problem, and each increase in depth naturally equates with an increase in the inferential capabilities of real-world agents. We also provide a resource-bounded argumentative characterisation of non-monotonic inference as defined by Brewka's Preferred Subtheories

Thinking Twice about Virtue and Vice: Philosophical Situationism and the Vicious Minds Hypothesis

This paper provides an empirical defense of credit theories of knowing against Mark Alfano’s challenges to them based on his theses of inferential cognitive situationism and of epistemic situationism. In order to support the claim that credit theories can treat many cases of cognitive success through heuristic cognitive strategies as credit-conferring, the paper develops the compatibility between virtue epistemologies qua credit theories, and dual-process theories in cognitive psychology. It also a response to Lauren Olin and John Doris’ “vicious minds” thesis, and their “tradeoff problem” for virtue theories. A genuine convergence between virtue epistemology and dual-process theory is called for, while acknowledging that this effort may demand new and more empirically well-informed projects on both sides of the division between Conservative virtue epistemology (including the credit theory of knowing) and Autonomous virtue epistemology (including projects for providing guidance to epistemic agents)

A Reasoning System for a First-Order Logic of Limited Belief

Logics of limited belief aim at enabling computationally feasible reasoning in highly expressive representation languages. These languages are often dialects of first-order logic with a weaker form of logical entailment that keeps reasoning decidable or even tractable. While a number of such logics have been proposed in the past, they tend to remain for theoretical analysis only and their practical relevance is very limited. In this paper, we aim to go beyond the theory. Building on earlier work by Liu, Lakemeyer, and Levesque, we develop a logic of limited belief that is highly expressive while remaining decidable in the first-order and tractable in the propositional case and exhibits some characteristics that make it attractive for an implementation. We introduce a reasoning system that employs this logic as representation language and present experimental results that showcase the benefit of limited belief.Comment: 22 pages, 0 figures, Twenty-sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-17