Criteria for logical formalization

Peregrin, Jaroslav; Svoboda, Vladimír

doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0104-0

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Termination criteria can be derived from the adequacy criteria of formalization found in the literature on logical analysis (see e.g. [3,14,38,39]). An equilibrium may be found after several iterations without any significant improvements.…”

Section: Are Termination Criteria Satisfied?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case Study on Computational Hermeneutics: E. J. Lowe’s Modal Ontological Argument

Fuenmayor

Benzmüller

2020

Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the special issue on Formal Approaches to the Ontological Argument and briefly introduces the ontological argument from the standpoint of logic and philosophy of religion (more specifically the debate on the rationality of theistic belief). Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed and subjected to logical analysis in different periods of the history of philosophy. In an important sense, they all deal with the rationality of theist belief. Providing a good argument for the conclusion that God does exist, or that it is highly probable that he exists, might be a pretty strong case for the thesis that belief in his existence is rational. Similarly, a good argument for the conclusion that God does not exist could be said to support the thesis that theistic belief is irrational. A more basic approach than that would be to analyze the very concept of God. Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? If we say yes, then there is something God cannot do, namely to create such a stone; if we say no, there is also something he cannot do, namely to lift the stone. In either case he is not omnipotent. If really unsolvable, paradoxes like this (this is the paradox of the stone) show that the concept of God (who is, besides other things, omnipotent 1) is incoherent or contradictory. Like the concept of a squared circle, it could never be 1 For more on the concept of omnipotence and the paradox of the stone see [6].

show abstract

Section: Are Termination Criteria Satisfied?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case Study on Computational Hermeneutics: E. J. Lowe’s Modal Ontological Argument

Fuenmayor

Benzmüller

2020

Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In more computational terms it can be rephrased as: what are the criteria of adequacy of logical formalisation of natural language statements? [26]. In this respect, there are two main schools of thoughts, one promoting atomism, the other reflective equilibrium.…”

Section: Argumentation and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The former one, advocated for instance in [3], suggests that the adequacy of a formalisation of a sentence does not depend on formalisation of other sentences. The latter, advocated for instance in [26], argues that formalisation is inherently a holistic endeavour. We believe that this question should be settled for the sake of artificial intelligence, leaving aside benefits for the philosophy of logic.…”

Section: Argumentation and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Unveiling the oracle: Artificial intelligence for the 21st century

Cerutti

Grassi

Vallati

2018

IDT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inability of current machines to expose biases induced by programmers and data scientists is leading towards the creation of a new religion, where machines are mystic oracles whose pronouncements have to be believed, and computer users are their servants. This has to change. In this paper we discuss the issues that can raise from biases introduced in autonomous systems, with specific care of the case of machine learning systems, and their impact on our society. In the light of the (current and future) exploitation of autonomous systems for law enforcement and war-fighting, we emphasise the importance of issues related to discrimination and safety. We also support the bold claim that artificial intelligence can help artificial intelligence in overcoming those issues: by enabling artificial intelligence to record every single step that lead to a given inference, and to argue with humans, we can unveil the mystic oracle and trust its services.

show abstract

“…Thus, any theory of correctness of arguments must 'consolidate' the data from natural language: it must draw sharp boundaries where there are none, extrapolate, standardize and streamline. Therefore, as we put it elsewhere (Peregrin and Svoboda 2013;t.a. ), the laws of logic, and the notion of correctness of argument we normally apply, is a matter of a reflective equilibrium.…”

Section: Logical Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

Logically Incorrect Arguments

Svoboda

Peregrin

2015

Argumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What do we learn when we find out that an argument is logically incorrect? If logically incorrect means the same as not logically correct, which in turn means not having a valid logical form, it seems that we do not learn anything too useful-an argument which is logically incorrect can still be conclusive. Thus, it seems that it makes sense to fix a stronger interpretation of the term under which a logically incorrect argument is guaranteed to be wrong (and is such for purely logical reasons). In this paper, we show that pinpointing this stronger sense is much trickier than one would expect; but eventually we reach an explication of the notion of (strong) logical incorrectness which we find non-trivial and viable.

show abstract

Criteria for logical formalization

Cited by 16 publications

References 4 publications

A Case Study on Computational Hermeneutics: E. J. Lowe’s Modal Ontological Argument

A Case Study on Computational Hermeneutics: E. J. Lowe’s Modal Ontological Argument

Unveiling the oracle: Artificial intelligence for the 21st century

Logically Incorrect Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About