maría del rosario martínez-ordaz ... - maria martinez-ordaz

María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz1

1 Institute for Philosophical Research-UNAMWith support of UNAM-PAPIIT projects

IA401117 “Aspectos filosóficos de las lógicas contraclásicas” and IA401717 “Pluralismo y Normatividad en Lógica y Matematicas”

[email protected]

1-July-2018Ghent, Belgium

Paraconsistent Heuristics, Inconsistent Information and Scientific Practice

InconsistentInformation

ParaconsistentApproaches

Some Critiques& motivations

Heuristics

Final Remarks

Paraconsistent Heuristics,Inconsistent

Information and Scientific Practice

María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz

Plan

Paraconsistent approaches

Inconsistent information

Some critiques & motivations

Heuristics (for risk management)

Final remarks

“Narrowly logical approaches”Paraconsistent Reasoning Strategies(minimal paraconsistent approaches)

Paraconsistent tools and HeuristicsRisk management plan




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Preliminaries

Contradiction

A pair of propositions, where one is the negation of the other.

Principle of ExplosionOne of the most characteristic principles of any explosive logic(including, of course, classical logic).It says that any theory, if closed under an explosive logicalconsequence relation, will trivialize when containing acontradiction.

Triviality

A theory is trivial if any proposition is a theorem.




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Inconsistent Information + logic




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Inconsistent Information + Science

History of science

Aristotle’s Theory of Motion

Bohr’s theory of the Atom Classical Electrodynamics Classical Mechanics (T-O) Early Calculus

Kirchhoff’s Theory of Diffraction

Newtonian Cosmology Nineteenth century

physics/geology

Inconsistency toleration

A phenomenon which takes place once agents identify a contradiction in a relevant part of their reasoning and are still able to distinguish between the (inferential) products of their reasoning that are sensible given a particular context from those that are not (Meheus 2002, Carnielli and Coniglio 2016, Friend and Martínez-Ordaz forthcoming).




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Inconsistent Information + Science

(Re)presentation IdentificationGroups of propositionsFamilies of modelsLanguageLogical consequence(s)Cf. Vickers 2013, Azzouni 2014

Theory itselfTheory-ObservationTheory-Theory

Cf. Priest 2002, Davey 2014

ContradictionEmpirical Scientific Theories


Logical EpistemicConsistency preservationInconsistency toleration(handling inconsistency mech.,Dialetheism)

Cf. Bueno 2017

UseBelieveEvidenceTruth*

Cf. Vickers 2013,




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Inconsistent Information + Science + Logic

Contradiction


(Re)presentation Identification

Logical Epistemic

Adaptive logics

LFIs

Content Driven C.

LP (…)

Pcstnt. Reasoning Str.

Partial Structures




Heuristics

Final Remarks




+ Reconstructions- Guidance

Paraconsistent Approaches


“Narrowly logical approaches”

Minimal approaches




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Some Critiques

“Narrowly logical approaches” I

The logical approaches that underlie the understanding of the inconsistencytoleration episodes, tend to threaten the understanding of the actualphenomenon (as it was claim for the case of the Priestian theory of motion,in Boccardi and Macias-Bustos 2017, and for some other interesting casesof alleged inconsistency toleration, in Vickers 2013).

“Narrowly logical approaches” II

“Narrowly logical approaches” III

Draw the attention away from the actual premises and arguments offered by scientists (Brown and Priest 2015).

Harman (1984, 1986) human rationality is not necessarily reducible to/ fully guided by/ described by the rules of our preferred formal logic.




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Some motivations

To provide a systematic account of how it is possible to use andcombine inconsistent information without arriving at triviality (Brownand Priest 2015).

Do not draw the attention away from the actual premises andarguments offered by scientists (Brown and Priest 2015).

To systematize how scientists could reason with inconsistent premisesand still avoid triviality –without taking sides in the debates aboutlogical consequence and doxastic commitments in cases ofinconsistent science (Brown 2017).

Minimal Approaches I

Minimal Approaches II

Minimal Approaches III




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Types of inferential proceduresthat they emphasize and theinferential contexts in whichthey are optimally used

Actual reasoning Evidence Truth values Structural relations (theory) …

What are all these things about?

Some motiva-questions




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Despite:



Can they help us to deal with contradiction?

Some motiva-questions




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Heuristics

Could behave as heuristics in the sense of being regularities for actions wherein “a kind of action (behavior) is characteristically undertaken under specifiable kinds of circumstances to achieve an end, or as part of a larger plan that is designed to do so” (Wimsatt 2007, p. 346).




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Some complications

Could behave as heuristics in the sense of being regularities foractions wherein “a kind of action (behavior) is characteristicallyundertaken under specifiable kinds of circumstances to achieve anend, or as part of a larger plan that is designed to do so”(Wimsatt 2007, p. 346).

How to distinguish between contexts in scientific practice?

How to correlate contexts-paraconsistent heuristics?

Is it possible to know when one approach could be more effective than the others?




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Some complications

“Risk”Evaluation of risk




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Special thanks to Moises Macias for the idea of looking for a solution of this problem by delving into the literature on risk

Heuristics

“We take it for granted that human activity, including science, is purposive.”(Wimsatt 2006)

Science: problem-solving enterprise

Empirical

Conceptual

Anomalies

Logical contradictions

…

Logical contradictions

…

Cf. Laudan 1977

Maximizing utilities, reducing (expected) lossInconsistentInformation



Heuristics

Final Remarks




How often do we find contradictions in our (best) scientific empirical theories?

And the risk of explosion?




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Heuristics & Risk

Heuristics

A list of individual risks

A rating of each risk (based on likelihood and impact)

An assessment of current controls (safety preserving mechanisms)

A plan of action (risk management selection)

Plan

Could behave as heuristics in the sense of beingregularities for actions wherein “a kind of action(behavior) is characteristically undertaken underspecifiable kinds of circumstances to achieve anend, or as part of a larger plan that is designed todo so”(Wimsatt 2007, p. 346).




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Inconsistent Information + Science + Logic

Contradiction


(Re)presentation Identification

Logical Epistemic

Adaptive logics

LFIs

Content Driven C.

LP (…)

Pcstnt. Reasoning Str.

Partial Structures




Heuristics

Final Remarks




+ Reconstructions

+ Guidance

Despite:



Can they help us to deal with contradiction in Sc Practice?

Final Remarks




Heuristics

Final Remarks




Can they help us to deal with contradiction in Sc Practice?

Final Remarks




Heuristics

Final Remarks







Heuristics

Final Remarks




María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz1

1 Institute for Philosophical Research-UNAMWith support of UNAM-PAPIIT projects

IA401117 “Aspectos filosóficos de las lógicas contraclásicas” and IA401717 “Pluralismo y Normatividad en Lógica y Matematicas”

[email protected]

1-July-2018Ghent, Belgium

Paraconsistent Heuristics, Inconsistent Information and Scientific Practice




Heuristics

Final Remarks




maría del rosario martínez-ordaz ... - maria martinez-ordaz

Documents