@incollection {D:graham, title = {Looting Liars Masking Models}, booktitle = {Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency}, year = {2019}, pages = {139--164}, publisher = {Springer}, abstract = {

This paper does not raise objections but spells out problems that I consider at present unsolved within Priest{\textquoteright}s view on logic. In light of the state of scientific and other theories ({\textsection}2) and in light of the character of natural languages ({\textsection}3), Priest{\textquoteright}s central arguments do not seem convincing. Next, I offer some six independent obstacles for defining consistency, identifying models and describing the semantics and metatheory of LP ({\textsection}4).

}, author = {Batens, Diderik}, editor = {Ba{\c s}kent, Can and Ferguson, Thomas Macaulay} } @article {D:campinas, title = {Logics for Qualitative Inductive Generalization}, journal = {Studia Logica}, volume = {97}, number = {1}, year = {2011}, pages = {61{\textendash}80}, abstract = {

The paper contains a survey of (mainly unpublished) adaptive logics of inductive generalization. These defeasible logics are precise formulations of certain methods.\\ Some attention is also paid to ways of handling background knowledge, introducing mere conjectures, and the research guiding capabilities of the logics.

}, doi = {10.1007/s11225-010-9297-8}, author = {Batens, Diderik} } @article {D:induct1a, title = {On a Logic of Induction}, journal = {Logic and Philosophy of Science}, volume = {IV}, number = {1}, year = {2006}, note = {(Corrected version of \cite{D:induct1}.)}, pages = {3{\textendash}32}, abstract = {

In this paper, I present a simple and straightforward logic of induction: a consequence relation characterized by a proof theory and a semantics. This system will be called LI. The premises will be restricted to, on the one hand, a set of empirical data and, on the other hand, a set of background generalizations. Among the consequences will be generalizations as well as singular statements, some of which may serve as predictions and explanations.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik} } @incollection {DJ:lpe, title = {On the Logic and Pragmatics of the Process of Explanation}, booktitle = {Explanatory Connections. {E}lectronic Essays Dedicated to Matti Sintonen}, year = {2001}, note = {

22\ pp.

}, publisher = {University of Helsinki}, abstract = {

In this paper, we present mainly two logical systems that clarify pragmatic aspects of the process of explanation. The first concerns a proof theory that leads to the derivation of possible initial conditions from an \emph{explanandum} and a given theory. The second logic concerns the derivation of questions in view of the verification of some possible initial condition, or of one out of several possible initial conditions. It is essential that the latter derivation proceeds in terms of all available knowledge, and not in terms of the explaining theory. It is shown that the second logic provides useful information for explicating further pragmatic aspects of the process of explanation. Several extensions of the logics are argued to be both useful and rather easy to obtain.

}, url = {http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/kfil/matti/}, author = {Batens, Diderik and Meheus, Joke}, editor = {Kiikeri, Mika and Ylikoski, Petri} } @article {D:l\&om, title = {Linguistic and Ontological Measures for Comparing the Inconsistent Parts of Models}, journal = {Logique et Analyse}, volume = {42}, number = {165-166}, year = {1999}, note = {Appeared 2002}, pages = {5{\textendash}33}, abstract = {

Adaptive logics depend essentially on measures for the degree of abnormality of models. The linguistic approach to such measures compares the sets of abnormal, e.g., inconsistent wffs verified by the models. The ontological approach compares models in terms of {\textquoteleft}structural{\textquoteright} properties that do not depend on the way in which the language is interpreted in the model.

While the linguistic approach has not been questioned up to now, present proposals for an ontological approach are affected by several weaknesses. The present paper argues for the attractiveness of an ontological approach and elaborates on the challenge to adequately define it. The final outcome is rather negative: the only sensible definition attained leads to a logic that does not seem to have any suitable application contexts.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik} } @book {D:tfg, title = {Leo Apostel. {T}ien filosofen getuigen}, series = {Leo Apostel. {T}ien filosofen getuigen}, year = {1996}, publisher = {Hadewijch}, organization = {Hadewijch}, address = {Antwerpen/Baarn}, editor = {Batens, Diderik} } @book {D:logica, title = {Logicaboek. {P}raktijk en theorie van het redeneren}, year = {1992}, publisher = {Garant}, organization = {Garant}, address = {Antwerpen/Apeldoorn}, author = {Batens, Diderik} } @incollection {D:ladl, title = {Leo {A}postel on Dialectical Logic}, booktitle = {The Philosophy of {L}eo {A}postel, vol. 2: {D}escriptive and Critical Essays}, year = {1989}, pages = {24{\textendash}55}, publisher = {Communication and Cognition}, author = {Batens, Diderik}, editor = {Vandamme, Fernand and Pinxten, Rik} }