Reasoning in practical situations

被引:0
|
作者
Wang, P [1 ]
机构
[1] Temple Univ, Dept Comp & Informat Sci, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
An automatic reasoning system usually consists of the following major components: (1) a formal language that represents knowledge, (2) a semantics that defines meaning and truth value in the language, (3) a set of inference rules that derives new knowledge from existing knowledge, (4) a memory that stores knowledge, and (5) a control mechanism that chooses premises and rules in each inference step. The first three components are usually referred to as a logic, or the logical part of the reasoning system, and the last two as an implementation of, or the control part of the system. The most influential theory for the logic part of reasoning systems is the modern symbolic logic, especially, first-order predicate logic. For the control part, it is the theory of computability and computational complexity. Though these theories have been very successful in many domains, their application to reasoning in practical situations shows fundamental differences from human reasoning in these situations. Traditional theories of reasoning are certain in several aspects, whereas actual human reasoning in practical situations is often uncertain in these aspects. The meaning of a term in traditional logic is determined according to an interpretation, therefore it does not change as the system runs. On the contrary, the meaning of a term in human mind often changes according to experience and context. Example: What is "game"? In traditional logic, the meaning of a compound term is completely determined by its "definition", which reduces its meaning into the meaning of its components and the operator (connector) that joins the components. On the contrary, the meaning of a term in human mind often cannot be fully reduced to that of its components, though is still related to them. Example: Is a "blackboard" exactly a black board? In traditional logic, a statement is either true or false, but people often take truth value of certain statements as between true and false. Example: Is "Tomorrow will be cloudy" true or false? In traditional logic, the truth value of a statement does not change over time. However, people often revise their beliefs after getting new information. Example: After learning that Tweety is a penguin, you may change some of your beliefs formed when you only know that it is a bird.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / 292
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Covariational reasoning in Bayesian situations
    Buechter, Theresa
    Eichler, Andreas
    Boecherer-Linder, Katharina
    Vogel, Markus
    Binder, Karin
    Krauss, Stefan
    Steib, Nicole
    EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS, 2024, 115 (03) : 481 - 505
  • [2] PRACTICAL REASONING
    HARMAN, G
    REVIEW OF METAPHYSICS, 1976, 29 (03): : 431 - 463
  • [3] Practical reasoning
    Stroud, B
    REASONING PRACTICALLY, 2000, : 27 - 38
  • [4] Practical reasoning and practical knowledge
    Stout, Rowland
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2019, 49 (04) : 564 - 579
  • [5] Graphs in Practical Situations
    刘晓玫
    任心玥
    中学生数学, 2008, (24) : 41 - 41
  • [6] The Reasoning View and Defeasible Practical Reasoning
    Asarnow, Samuel
    PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2017, 95 (03) : 614 - 636
  • [7] ZPLAN - AN AUTOMATIC REASONING SYSTEM FOR SITUATIONS
    BROWN, FM
    PARK, SS
    PHELPS, J
    LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, 1988, 310 : 758 - 759
  • [8] Reasoning in pedagogical versus deceptive situations
    Warner, Russell
    Stoess, Todd
    Shafto, Patrick
    COGNITION IN FLUX, 2010, : 671 - 671
  • [9] MORAL REASONING IN HYPOTHETICAL AND ACTUAL SITUATIONS
    SUMPRER, GF
    BUTTER, EJ
    SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 1978, 6 (02): : 205 - 209
  • [10] Modeling of nonrigorous reasoning in familiar situations
    Kovrizhkin, O.G.
    Cybernetics (English Translation of Kibernetika), 1991, 26 (03):