You are on page 1of 81

# Three Complications in Modeling Abduction in Science

Tjerk Gauderis
Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science Ghent University Tjerk.Gauderis@Ugent.be

CLMPS 2011
Nancy · July 26th, 2011

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

1 / 28

Outline
Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge

1

2

3

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

2 / 28

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

3 / 28

Goal
We want to create adaptive logics which enable us to model both: deductive steps defeasible steps according to the Peircean Schema of factual abduction The surprising fact, C is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. which we will formalize as: (∀α)(A(α) ⊃ B(α)) B(β) A(β) We presuppose that A(α) and B(α) share no predicates.

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

4 / 28

Outline Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge 1 2 3 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 5 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra PREM PREM Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa PREM PREM Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case 4 Qb ∨¬Qb Tautology Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

RU Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case 4 Qb ∨¬Qb 5 Pa ∨ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa Tautology 1.

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case 4 Qb ∨¬Qb 5 Pa ∨ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa Tautology 1.RU approximates the idea of “unless Pa is not possible as an explanation for Ra” Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case 4 Qb ∨¬Qb 5 Pa ∨ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa Tautology 1.RU approximates the idea of “unless Pa is not possible as an explanation for Ra” Advantage: every time we derive a formula of the form A(β) ∨ ∀α A(α) ⊃ B(α) ∧ B(β) ∧ ¬A(β) we can consider A(β) as a hypothesis (according the peircean schema) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case 4 Qb ∨¬Qb 5 Pa ∨ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa Tautology 1.RU approximates the idea of “unless Pa is not possible as an explanation for Ra” Advantage: every time we derive a formula of the form A(β) ∨ ∀α A(α) ⊃ B(α) ∧ B(β) ∧ ¬A(β) we can consider A(β) as a hypothesis (according the peircean schema) 5 Pa 1. RC { (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa } Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .2.

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 Pa ∨ ¬Pa PREM PREM Tautology Pa is a possible explanation for Ra unless ¬Pa is the case 4 Qb ∨¬Qb 5 Pa ∨ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa Tautology 1. RC { (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ Ra ∧ ¬Pa } idea from [Meheus(2010)].RU approximates the idea of “unless Pa is not possible as an explanation for Ra” Advantage: every time we derive a formula of the form A(β) ∨ ∀α A(α) ⊃ B(α) ∧ B(β) ∧ ¬A(β) we can consider A(β) as a hypothesis (according the peircean schema) 5 Pa 1. which is behind all adaptive logics for abduction Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 6 / 28 .2.

Outline Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge 1 2 3 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 7 / 28 .

Γ=   Ra → We have to decide which consequences we want to derive defeasibly. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 8 / 28 .  (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).Multiple explanatory hypotheses Example    (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).

Multiple explanatory hypotheses Example    (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).  (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). Γ=   Ra → We have to decide which consequences we want to derive defeasibly. Γ Γ Γ Pa ∨ Qa ? Pa and Γ Pa ∧ Qa ? Qa ? Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 8 / 28 .

Multiple explanatory hypotheses Example    (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).  (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). both hypotheses are suﬃcient explanations if hypotheses are contradictory ⇒ Logical Explosion Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 8 / 28 . Γ=   Ra → We have to decide which consequences we want to derive defeasibly. Γ Γ Γ Pa ∨ Qa ? Pa and Γ Qa ? Pa ∧ Qa ? ⇒ NOT We can already rule out the last option: not sensible.

Two Types of Factual Abduction Depending on the kind of reasoning we try to model: Γ Pa ∨ Qa Γ Pa Γ Qa Γ Pa Γ Qa Γ Pa ∨ Qa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 9 / 28 .

Two Types of Factual Abduction Depending on the kind of reasoning we try to model: Practical Abduction Γ Pa ∨ Qa Γ Pa Γ Qa Theoretical Abduction Γ Pa Γ Qa Γ Pa ∨ Qa reasoning aimed at further research to ﬁnd the actual cause (extend Γ) e. criminal investigations. diagnoses. . reasoning aimed at acting on the conclusions (derived from the current Γ) e. engineering.g. conversations. . science. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 9 / 28 . . . . .g.

diagnoses. . engineering. .Two Types of Factual Abduction Depending on the kind of reasoning we try to model: Practical Abduction Γ Pa ∨ Qa Γ Pa Γ Qa Theoretical Abduction Γ Pa Γ Qa Γ Pa ∨ Qa reasoning aimed at further research to ﬁnd the actual cause (extend Γ) e. criminal investigations. . . modelled by LAr s [Meheus(2010)] Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) . science. .g. modelled by MLAs [Gauderis(2011)] Three Complications CLMPS11 9 / 28 reasoning aimed at acting on the conclusions (derived from the current Γ) e.g. conversations. .

1 Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge 2 3 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 10 / 28 .

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 11 / 28 .Theoretical Abduction Reconsidered Allowing the consequences Pa and Qa while preventing the conjunction Pa ∧ Qa is not a convincing model for theoretical abduction.

complex proof dynamics ⇒ In large premise sets it is hard to keep track of which formulas can be conjoined together. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 11 / 28 .Theoretical Abduction Reconsidered Allowing the consequences Pa and Qa while preventing the conjunction Pa ∧ Qa is not a convincing model for theoretical abduction.

complex proof dynamics ⇒ In large premise sets it is hard to keep track of which formulas can be conjoined together. countra-intuitive ⇒ CL-rules should be applicable to all elements of the consequence set. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 11 / 28 .Theoretical Abduction Reconsidered Allowing the consequences Pa and Qa while preventing the conjunction Pa ∧ Qa is not a convincing model for theoretical abduction.

not mirroring natural human reasoning ⇒ asserting that “Pa is the case and Qa is also the case. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 11 / 28 . but not both” is not what people do when they consider two diﬀerent explanations. complex proof dynamics ⇒ In large premise sets it is hard to keep track of which formulas can be conjoined together. countra-intuitive ⇒ CL-rules should be applicable to all elements of the consequence set.Theoretical Abduction Reconsidered Allowing the consequences Pa and Qa while preventing the conjunction Pa ∧ Qa is not a convincing model for theoretical abduction.

.. by going modal Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 12 / 28 ..

by going modal Idea: If we represent abduced hypotheses by possibilities. then Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 12 / 28 ....

. by going modal Idea: If we represent abduced hypotheses by possibilities.. then Γ Γ Γ ♦Pa ♦Qa ♦Pa ∧ ♦Qa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 12 / 28 ..

. then Γ Γ Γ Γ ♦Pa ♦Qa ♦Pa ∧ ♦Qa ♦(Pa ∧ Qa) in any standard modal logic.. by going modal Idea: If we represent abduced hypotheses by possibilities.. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 12 / 28 .

then Γ Γ Γ Γ ♦Pa ♦Qa ♦Pa ∧ ♦Qa ♦(Pa ∧ Qa) in any standard modal logic.  (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). therefore we will need to reformulate our premise set to    (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx). Γ=   Ra Because deductive consequences of the premise set need to be able to refute untenable hypotheses.. by going modal Idea: If we represent abduced hypotheses by possibilities.. But. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 12 / 28 ..

1 W is the set of closed formulas of CL Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 13 / 28 .Language Schema LM . is L (of CL) extended with the modal operator (♦ is deﬁned as ¬ ¬). the language of our logic.

A ⊃ B. the language of our logic.Language Schema LM . WM . A ≡ B ∈ WM 1 W is the set of closed formulas of CL Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 13 / 28 . is L (of CL) extended with the modal operator (♦ is deﬁned as ¬ ¬). the set of closed formulas of LM . then A ∧ B. then A. then ¬A ∈ WM if A. A ∨ B. A ∈ WM if A ∈ WM . is the smallest set that satisﬁes:1 1 2 3 if A ∈ W. B ∈ WM .

A ⊃ B. is L (of CL) extended with the modal operator (♦ is deﬁned as ¬ ¬). the set of closed formulas of LM . A ∨ B. then A. is the smallest set that satisﬁes:1 1 2 3 if A ∈ W. then A ∧ B. the elements of which can act as premises in our logic: WΓ = { A | A ∈ W} 1 W is the set of closed formulas of CL Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 13 / 28 . A ≡ B ∈ WM WΓ . then ¬A ∈ WM if A. A ∈ WM if A ∈ WM . the subset of WM . WM . the language of our logic.Language Schema LM . B ∈ WM .

Proof Theory Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 14 / 28 .

.. in our case this is the modal logic D. the lower limit logic. (RU) A1 . An D B Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 14 / 28 .... An MLAs B if A1 . ...Proof Theory undefeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a monotonic logic.

. in our case this is the modal logic D... . . the lower limit logic.. ... An MLAs B if A1 ...Proof Theory undefeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a monotonic logic.. . (RU) A1 . An D B defeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a set of abnormalities Ω (the elements of which (we call them Θi ) are deﬁned by a logical form): (RC) A1 . An D B ∨ Θ1 ∨ .. ∨ Θn Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 14 / 28 . . An MLAs B if A1 ... .

. .. .. (RU) A1 .. .. . . .. in our case this is the modal logic D.. .Proof Theory undefeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a monotonic logic. .... . An Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 14 / 28 . An MLAs B if A1 . An D B ∨ Θ1 ∨ .. An RC-results : union of Θ1 . . ∨ Θn Every formula has a recursively deﬁned set of conditions associated that are assumed to be false: premises : ∅ RU-results : union of conditions of A1 .. . the lower limit logic. An D B defeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a set of abnormalities Ω (the elements of which (we call them Θi ) are deﬁned by a logical form): (RC) A1 .. . Θn and conditions of A1 ... An MLAs B if A1 ....

. ..... .. In our case we have the simple strategy: a formula is unreliable if an element of the set of conditions is unconditionally derived Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 14 / 28 .. Θn and conditions of A1 . . .Proof Theory undefeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a monotonic logic. ... An D B ∨ Θ1 ∨ . in our case this is the modal logic D.. .. An MLAs B if A1 ... .. ∨ Θn Every formula has a recursively deﬁned set of conditions associated that are assumed to be false: premises : ∅ RU-results : union of conditions of A1 . . .. An defeated reasoning steps: if the strategy shows them to be unreliable. .. An MLAs B if A1 . .. An D B defeasible reasoning steps: characterized by a set of abnormalities Ω (the elements of which (we call them Θi ) are deﬁned by a logical form): (RC) A1 . (RU) A1 . . the lower limit logic.. An RC-results : union of Θ1 .

Set of Abnormalities What are the conditions to derive ♦A(β) from a set of premises Γ? Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 15 / 28 .

Set of Abnormalities What are the conditions to derive ♦A(β) from a set of premises Γ? ♦A(β) is a possible explanation for some Γ D B(β) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 15 / 28 .

Set of Abnormalities What are the conditions to derive ♦A(β) from a set of premises Γ? ♦A(β) is a possible explanation for some Γ D B(β) B(β) is not a tautology (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 15 / 28 .

Set of Abnormalities What are the conditions to derive ♦A(β) from a set of premises Γ? ♦A(β) is a possible explanation for some Γ D B(β) B(β) is not a tautology (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) ♦A(β) has no redundant part (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 15 / 28 .

Set of Abnormalities What are the conditions to derive ♦A(β) from a set of premises Γ? ♦A(β) is a possible explanation for some Γ D B(β) B(β) is not a tautology (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) ♦A(β) has no redundant part (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) Set of Abnormalities    ∀α A(α) ⊃ B(α) ∧ B(β) ∧ ¬A(β)     ∨ (∀α)B(α)  n −1 Ω= i=1 (∀α)(A (α) ⊃ B(α)) |  ∨  No predicate that ioccurs in B occurs in A. β ∈ C. A.      α ∈ V. B ∈ F                Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 15 / 28 .

CLMPS11 15 / 28 .Set of Abnormalities What are the conditions to derive ♦A(β) from a set of premises Γ? ♦A(β) is a possible explanation for some Γ D B(β) B(β) is not a tautology (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) ♦A(β) has no redundant part (otherwise: anything is a hypothesis) Set of Abnormalities    ∀α A(α) ⊃ B(α) ∧ B(β) ∧ ¬A(β)     ∨ (∀α)B(α)  n −1 Ω= i=1 (∀α)(A (α) ⊃ B(α)) |  ∨  No predicate that ioccurs in B occurs in A. B ∈ F This logical form can unambigiously be shortened as Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications                !A(β) B(β).      α ∈ V. β ∈ C. A.

¬Sa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). Ra.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx). (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).

Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx). Ra. ¬Sa PREM PREM ∅ ∅ 1 2 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) Ra Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).

¬Sa PREM PREM 1.RC ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .2. Ra.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx). (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).

RC PREM ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . ¬Sa PREM PREM 1.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).2. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). Ra.

(∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).RC PREM 3.RU ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ {!Pa Ra} 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .2. Ra. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). ¬Sa PREM PREM 1.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).4.

Ra. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).RU PREM ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .4. ¬Sa PREM PREM 1.RC PREM 3.2.

(∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).RC PREM 3.RU ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .4. Ra.2.RU PREM 4.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).6. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). ¬Sa PREM PREM 1.

2.4.6. ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).7.RU ∅ 1.RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.RU ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4. Ra.2.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).

(∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). Ra.2.RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4.RU ∅ 1.2.RU ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).6.7.RU ∅ 8.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.4. ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.

¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).2.7. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).2. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).RU ∅ 8.RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4.RU ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 9 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.6.RU ∅ 1.4. Ra.

RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx). ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.2.4.RU ∅ PREM ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 10 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 9 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . Ra.7.6. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.RU ∅ 1.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).2.RU ∅ 8.

2.RU ∅ 8. ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.7.4. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4.RU ∅ 1. Ra.RU ∅ PREM ∅ 2.10.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).6.2.RC {!Qa Ra} 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 10 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 11 ♦Qa 9 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).

RU ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 10 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 11 ♦Qa 12 (∀x)((Qx ∧ Sx) ⊃ Rx) 9 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).RU ∅ 8. Ra.10. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4.RU ∅ PREM ∅ 2.6.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).RU ∅ 1.7.2.2. ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.4.RC {!Qa Ra} 10.

7. ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.2. Ra. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).10.RC ∅ {!Qa Ra} ∅ {!(Qa ∧ Sa) Ra} 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 10 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 11 ♦Qa 12 (∀x)((Qx ∧ Sx) ⊃ Rx) 13 ♦(Qa ∧ Sa) 9 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).RU ∅ 1.RC 10.RU ∅ 8.RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).6.2.RU 2.10.RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4.RU ∅ PREM 2.4.

(∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).2.RU ∅ {!Qa Ra} ∅ {!(Qa ∧ Sa) Ra} ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 10 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 11 ♦Qa 12 (∀x)((Qx ∧ Sx) ⊃ Rx) 13 ♦(Qa ∧ Sa) 14 !(Qa ∧ Sa) Ra 9 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 . ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.RU 2.6.RC 10.RC 10.4.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).RU ∅ 1.2.7. Ra.10.10.RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).RU ∅ PREM 2.RU ∅ 8.

RU ∅ 8.6.RC {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 3.RC 10.RU ∅ {!Qa Ra} ∅ {!(Qa ∧ Sa) Ra} ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx) 5 ♦Sa 6 ¬Sa 7 ¬Pa 8 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) ∧ (Ra ∧ ¬Pa) 9 !Pa Ra 10 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 11 ♦Qa 12 (∀x)((Qx ∧ Sx) ⊃ Rx) 13 ♦(Qa ∧ Sa) 14 !(Qa ∧ Sa) Ra 9 9 14 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 16 / 28 .10.RU {!Pa Ra} PREM ∅ 4.RU ∅ PREM 2. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).2. ¬Sa PREM ∅ PREM ∅ 1.7.10.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).RC 10. (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sx).RU 2.RU ∅ 1.4.2. Ra.

Outline Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge 1 2 3 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 17 / 28 .

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 18 / 28 .

is LS5 (with the modal operators (♦ is deﬁned as a and ♦a ) extended with the extra modal operator ¬ ¬).Extending the Language Schema LM1 . Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 19 / 28 . the language of the ﬁrst extension.

the language of the ﬁrst extension. A ∈ WM1 if A ∈ WM1 . A ∨ B.Extending the Language Schema LM1 . B ∈ WM1 . is LS5 (with the modal operators (♦ is deﬁned as a and ♦a ) extended with the extra modal operator ¬ ¬). WM1 . then ¬A ∈ WM1 if A. is the smallest set that satisﬁes: 1 2 3 if A ∈ WS5 . then A. A ≡ B ∈ WM1 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 19 / 28 . then A ∧ B. A ⊃ B. the set of closed formulas of LM1 .

Extending the Language Schema LM1 . A ⊃ B. then ¬A ∈ WM1 if A. the elements of which can act as premises in our logic: WΓ1 = { A | A ∈ WS5 } Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 19 / 28 . WM1 . A ≡ B ∈ WM1 WΓ1 . B ∈ WM1 . then A. then A ∧ B. A ∨ B. is LS5 (with the modal operators (♦ is deﬁned as a and ♦a ) extended with the extra modal operator ¬ ¬). the set of closed formulas of LM1 . the language of the ﬁrst extension. the subset of WM1 . A ∈ WM1 if A ∈ WM1 . is the smallest set that satisﬁes: 1 2 3 if A ∈ WS5 .

We add an extra possibility operator to our language ♦a which behaves according to S5 and change the set of abnormalities in the following way:       ∀α A(α) ⊃ ♦a B(α) ∧ B(β) ∧ ¬A(β)        ∨ (∀α)B(α)    n −1 ΩM1 = ∨ (∀α)(Ai (α) ⊃ ♦a B(α)) | i=1    No predicate that occurs in B occurs in A.           α ∈ V. β ∈ C. A. B ∈ F  Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 20 / 28 .

Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx). Ra Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 21 / 28 . (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).

RC ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 21 / 28 .2.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx). Ra PREM PREM 1. (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx).

RC PREM ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ 1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 21 / 28 . (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx). Ra PREM PREM 1.Example Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx).2.

Example
Γ= (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx), (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx), Ra
PREM PREM 1,2;RC PREM 4;RU 2,10;RC ∅ ∅ {!Pa Ra} ∅ ∅ {!Qa Ra}

1 (∀x)(Px ⊃ ♦a Rx) 2 Ra 3 ♦Pa 4 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ Rx) 5 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ ♦a Rx) 6 ♦Qa

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

21 / 28

Outline
Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge

1

2

3

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

22 / 28

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

23 / 28

Outline
Modeling Abduction by means of Adaptive Logics Abduction The Idea behind Adaptive Logics for Abduction Two Types of Factual Abduction The Logic MLAs Three Complications for Modelling Abduction in Science Insuﬃcient Arguments Anomalies Hierarchical Background Knowledge

1

2

3

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent)

Three Complications

CLMPS11

24 / 28

Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 25 / 28 .

We foresee in this possibility by combining MLAs with a variant of the logics Ki for background knowledge [Batens(2011)]. The LLL of these logics is K. Ωi = {∃(♦ib A ∧ ¬A) | A ∈ A} We can abbreviate the abnormalities as !A. CnM2 (Γ) = CnMLAs (. . (CnK2 (CnK1 (Γ))) .) Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 26 / 28 . . . .

Qa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 27 / 28 . ♦2 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ ¬Rx). b Ra.Example Γ= ♦b (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx).

b Ra.3.Example Γ= ♦b (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx). ♦2 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ ¬Rx). Qa PREM 1. !Rx} ∅ {!¬Px.RCMLAs ∅ {!¬Px.RCK1 PREM 2. !Rx. !Pa Ra} 1 ♦b (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 3 Ra 4 ♦Pa Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 27 / 28 .

7.RCK2 PREM 5. !Rx. !¬Rx} ∅ ∅ ∅ 1 ♦b (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 2 (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx) 3 Ra 4 ♦Pa 5 ♦2 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ ¬Rx) b 6 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ ¬Rx) 7 Qa 8 ♦¬Ra 9 !¬Ra 9 Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 27 / 28 .RCK1 PREM 2.3.RU 3.8. ♦2 (∀x)(Qx ⊃ ¬Rx).RU ∅ {!¬Px.Example Γ= ♦b (∀x)(Px ⊃ Rx). !Pa Ra} ∅ {!¬Qx.RCMLAs PREM 5. b Ra. !Rx} ∅ {!¬Px. Qa PREM 1.

Joke Meheus. Forthcoming. Forthcoming.Diderik Batens. Adaptive Logics and Dynamic Proofs. 2011. 2011. Tjerk Gauderis (UGent) Three Complications CLMPS11 28 / 28 . A formal logic for the abductions of singular hypotheses. A Study in the Dynamics of Reasoning. Tjerk Gauderis. 2010. Forthcoming. Modelling abduction in science by means of a modal adaptive logic.