@incollection {D:IALtut, title = {Tutorial on Inconsistency-Adaptive Logics}, booktitle = {New Directions in Paraconsistent Logic}, year = {2015}, publisher = {Springer}, abstract = {

This paper contains a concise introduction to a few central features of inconsistency-adaptive logics. The focus is on the aim of the program, on logics that may be useful with respect to applications, and on insights that are central for judging the importance of the research goals and the adequacy of results. Given the nature of adaptive logics, the paper may be read as a peculiar introduction to defeasible reasoning.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik}, editor = {B{\'e}ziau, Jean-Yves and Chakraborty, Mihir and Dutta, Soma} } @incollection {D:tmdm, title = {Two, Many, And Differently Many}, booktitle = {The Road to Universal Logic. Festschrift for the 50th Birthday of Jean-Yves B{\'e}ziau}, volume = {II}, year = {2015}, pages = {213{\textendash}242}, publisher = {Birkh{\"a}user}, address = {Basel}, abstract = {

This paper is a modest contribution to a universal logic approach to many-valued semantic systems. The main focus is on the relation between such systems and two-valued ones. The matter is discussed for usual many-valued semantic systems. These turn out to exist for more logics than expected. A new type of many-valued semantics is devised and its use illustrated. Truth-functionality has a rather central place in the discussion, which leads to philosophical conclusions.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik}, editor = {Koslow, Arnold and Buchsbaum, Arthur} } @incollection {D:shahid, title = {Towards a Dialogic Interpretation of Dynamic Proofs}, booktitle = {Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of {S}hahid {R}ahman}, year = {2009}, pages = {27{\textendash}51}, publisher = {College Publications}, address = {London}, abstract = {

The main result presented in this paper concerns a dialogic or game-theoretical interpretation of dynamic proofs. Dynamic proofs in themselves do not form a demonstration of the derivability of their last formula from a given premise set. Apart from the proof, such a demonstration requires a specific metalevel argument. In a natural and appealing form, the metalevel argument is phrased in terms of the existence of a winning strategy for the proponent.\par The aforementioned point is presented in terms of an approach that is in a sense Hilbertian and anti-Tarskian: the characterization of logical inference in terms of types of proofs, rather than in terms of properties of the consequence relation.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik}, editor = {D{\'e}gremont, C{\'e}dric and Keiff, Laurent and R{\"u}ckert, Helge} } @article {DC\&P:tdl, title = {On the Transparency of Defeasible Logics: Equivalent Premise Sets, Equivalence of Their Extensions, and Maximality of the Lower Limit}, journal = {Logique et Analyse}, volume = {207}, year = {2009}, pages = {281{\textendash}304}, abstract = {

For Tarski logics, there are simple criteria that enable one to conclude that two premise sets are equivalent. We shall show that the very same criteria hold for adaptive logics, which is a major advantage in comparison to other approaches to defeasible reasoning forms.
A related property of Tarski logics is that the extensions of equivalent premise sets with the same set of formulas are equivalent premise sets. This does not hold for adaptive logics. However a very similar criterion does.
We also shall show that every monotonic logic weaker than an adaptive logic is weaker than the lower limit logic of the adaptive logic or identical to it. This highlights the role of the lower limit for settling the adaptive equivalence of extensions of equivalent premise sets.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik and Stra{\ss}er, Christian and Verd{\'e}e, Peter} } @article {D:explanat, title = {The Theory of the Process of Explanation Generalized to Include the Inconsistent Case}, journal = {Synthese}, volume = {143}, year = {2005}, note = {doi:10.1007/s11229-005-3114-3}, pages = {63{\textendash}88}, abstract = {

This paper proposes a generalization of the theory of the process of explanation to include consistent as well as inconsistent situations. The generalization is strong, for example in the sense that, if the background theory and the initial conditions are consistent, it leads to precisely the same results as the theory from the lead paper \cite{H\&H:tpe}. The paper presupposes (and refers to arguments for the view that) inconsistencies constitute problems and that scientists try to resolve them.

}, doi = {10.1007/s11229-005-3114-3}, author = {Batens, Diderik} } @incollection {DJ:tabl1, title = {A Tableau Method for Inconsistency-Adaptive Logics}, booktitle = {Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods}, series = {Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence}, volume = {1847}, year = {2000}, pages = {127{\textendash}142}, publisher = {Springer}, abstract = {

We present a tableau method for inconsistency-adaptive logics and illustrate it in terms of the two best studied systems. The method is new in that adaptive logics require a more complex structure of the tableaus and of some rules and conditions. As there is no positive test for derivability in inconsistency-adaptive logics, the tableau method is important for providing criteria for derivability.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik and Meheus, Joke}, editor = {Dyckhoff, Roy} } @article {D:unific, title = {Towards the Unification of Inconsistency Handling Mechanisms}, journal = {Logic and Logical Philosophy}, volume = {8}, year = {2000}, note = {Appeared 2002}, pages = {5{\textendash}31}, abstract = {

It is shown that the (flat) consequence relations defined from the Rescher-Manor Mechanism (that is: in terms of maximal consistent subsets of the premises) are all inconsistency-adaptive logics combined with a specific interpretation schema for the premises. Each of the adaptive logics is obtained by applying a suitable adaptive strategy to the paraconsistent logic CLuN.

This result provides all those consequence relations with a (dynamic) proof theory and with a static (as well as a dynamic) semantics.

}, author = {Batens, Diderik} } @article {D\&PC:tep, title = {The two-envelope paradox: the infinite case}, journal = {Analysis}, volume = {54}, year = {1994}, pages = {46{\textendash}49}, author = {Castel, Paul and Batens, Diderik} } @book {DJp:t\&e, title = {Theory and Experiment. {R}ecent Insights and New Perspectives on Their Relation}, year = {1988}, publisher = {Reidel}, organization = {Reidel}, address = {Dordrecht}, editor = {Batens, Diderik and Van Bendegem, Jean Paul} } @incollection {D:two-enrich, title = {Two semantically motivated enrichments of relevant logics}, booktitle = {Essays in Philosophical Logic}, year = {1987}, pages = {65{\textendash}74}, publisher = {Jagiellonian University Press}, author = {Batens, Diderik}, editor = {Perzanowski, Jerzy} }