INVESTIGADORES
BODANZA Gustavo Adrian
artículos
Título:
Disjunctions and Specificity in Suppositional Argumentation Systems
Autor/es:
BODANZA, GUSTAVO ADRIƁN
Revista:
LOGIC JOURNAL OF THE IGPL (PRINT)
Editorial:
Oxford University Press
Referencias:
Año: 2002 vol. 10 p. 23 - 23
ISSN:
1367-0751
Resumen:
This work introduces a system of suppositional argumentation (SAS), trying to give a foundation for dealing intuitively with disjunctive information in a defeasible reasoning framework. Defeasible argu- mentation systems proposed in the eld of Arti cial Intelligence lack in general of such a capability. Our view is that suppositional reasoning is present in defeasible arguments involving disjunctions, just as in reasoning by cases in classical logic. Disjunctive information can express dierent plausible alternatives which consideration would improve the results of a debate. Here is studied in what extent an argument assuming such plausible alternatives can be considered relevant within the given context, and how those alternatives can be compared on basis of their explicative power. In conse- quence, a debate can be aected in several aspects, among which counter argumentation, defeat and justi cation have to be considered. Moreover, a comparison among arguments using speci city is adopted, obtaining that also defeasible contrapositive arguments are treated intuitively. Interesting properties of the system (consistency, a deduction theorem, reasoning by cases) are proved, and common sense rationality is tested with several benchmark problems.SAS), trying to give a foundation for dealing intuitively with disjunctive information in a defeasible reasoning framework. Defeasible argu- mentation systems proposed in the eld of Arti cial Intelligence lack in general of such a capability. Our view is that suppositional reasoning is present in defeasible arguments involving disjunctions, just as in reasoning by cases in classical logic. Disjunctive information can express dierent plausible alternatives which consideration would improve the results of a debate. Here is studied in what extent an argument assuming such plausible alternatives can be considered relevant within the given context, and how those alternatives can be compared on basis of their explicative power. In conse- quence, a debate can be aected in several aspects, among which counter argumentation, defeat and justi cation have to be considered. Moreover, a comparison among arguments using speci city is adopted, obtaining that also defeasible contrapositive arguments are treated intuitively. Interesting properties of the system (consistency, a deduction theorem, reasoning by cases) are proved, and common sense rationality is tested with several benchmark problems. Keywords: Defeasible argumentation, suppositional reasoning, disjunctive information, contraposi- tion, speci city.: Defeasible argumentation, suppositional reasoning, disjunctive information, contraposi- tion, speci city.