<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Degrees of inconsistency. Carefully combining classical and paraconsistent negation.</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper is devoted to combining the negation of Classical Logic (&lt;strong&gt;CL&lt;/strong&gt;) and the negation of Graham Priest's &lt;strong&gt;LP&lt;/strong&gt; in a way that is faithful to central properties of the combined logics. We give a number of desiderata for a logic &lt;strong&gt;L&lt;/strong&gt; which combines both negations. These desiderata include the following: (a) &lt;strong&gt;L&lt;/strong&gt; should be truth functional, (b) &lt;strong&gt;L&lt;/strong&gt; should be strictly non-explosive for the paraconsisent negation ˜ (i.e. if &lt;em&gt;A&lt;/em&gt; and ˜&lt;em&gt;A&lt;/em&gt; both have a non-trivial set of consequences, then this should also be the case for the set containing both) and (c) &lt;strong&gt;L&lt;/strong&gt; should be a conservative extension of &lt;strong&gt;CL&lt;/strong&gt; and of &lt;strong&gt;LP&lt;/strong&gt;. The desiderata are motivated by a particular property-theoretic perspective on paraconsistency. Next we devise the logic &lt;strong&gt;CLP&lt;/strong&gt;. We present an axiomatization of this logic and three semantical characterizations (a non-deterministic semantics, an in nitely valued set-theoretic semantics and an in nitely valued semantics with integer numbers as values). We prove that &lt;strong&gt;CLP&lt;/strong&gt; is the only logic satisfying all postulated desiderata. The in nitely valued semantics of &lt;strong&gt;CLP&lt;/strong&gt; can be seen as giving rise to an interpretation in which inconsistencies and inconsistent properties come in degrees: not every sentence which involves inconsistencies is equally inconsistent.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thijs De Coninck</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederik Van De Putte</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original position arguments: an axiomatic characterization</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Klein, Dominik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pooling Modalities and Pointwise Intersection: Semantics, Expressivity, and Applications</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederik Van De Putte</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Klein, Dominik</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pooling Modalities and Pointwise Intersection: Semantics, Expressivity, and Applications</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">classical modal logics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coalition logic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed belief</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">multi-agent systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pointwise intersection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pooling modalities</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;We study classical modal logics with pooling modalities, i.e. unary modal operators that allow one to express properties of sets obtained by the pointwise intersection of neighbourhoods. We discuss salient properties of these modalities, situate the logics in the broader area of modal logics (with a particular focus on relational semantics), establish key properties concerning their expressive power, and discuss their application to epistemic/doxastic logic, the logic of evidence-based belief, deontic logic, and logics of agency and ability.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive Deontic Logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><edition><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></edition><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coarse Deontic Logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic and Computation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandoulakis, I.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dun, Liu</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dutch Algebra and Arithmetic in Japan before the Meiji Restoration</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Navigating across Mathematical Cultures and Times: Exploring the Diversity of Discoveries and Proofs</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World  Scientific  Publishing  Co.</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper gives an overview of the scarce occasions in which Japan came into contact with Western arithmetic and algebra before the Meiji restoration of 1868. After the refutation of persistent claims on the influence through Japanese students at Leiden during the seventeenth century, it concentrates on the reception of Dutch works during the last decades of the Tokugawa &lt;em&gt;shogunate&lt;/em&gt; and the motivations to study and translate these books. While some studies based on Japanese sources have already been published on this period,2 this paper draws from Dutch sources and in particular on witness accounts from Dutch officers at the Nagasaki naval school, responsible for the instruction of mathematics to selected samurai and &lt;em&gt;rangakusha&lt;/em&gt;. Two Japanese textbooks on arithmetic from that period are viewed within the context of this naval training school.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mathieu Beirlaen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bert Leuridan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederik Van De Putte</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Logic for the Discovery of Deterministic Causal Regularities</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Synthese</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–33</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Non-Adjunctive Deontic Logics That Validate Aggregation as Much as Possible</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Applied Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rethinking the explanatory power of extended cognition</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frijters, Stef</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Classical term-modal logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CHOICE}</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hardware and Architecture</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">logic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Software</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">{Theoretical Computer Science</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exaa053}</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1026-1054</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;{We introduce classical term-modal logics and argue that they are useful for modelling agent-relative notions of obligation, evidence and abilities, and their interaction with properties of and relations between the agents in question. We spell out the semantics of these logics in terms of neighborhood models, provide sound and strongly complete axiomatizations and establish the decidability of specific (agent-finite) variants.}&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Klein, Dominik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pooling Modalities and Pointwise Intersection: Axiomatization and Decidability</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">online first</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;We establish completeness and the finite model property for logics featuring the &lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt;pooling modalities&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span&gt; that were introduced in Van De&amp;nbsp;Putte and Klein (Pooling modalities and pointwise intersection: semantics, expressivity, and applications). The definition of our canonical models combines standard techniques with a so-called “puzzle piece construction”, which we first illustrate informally. After that, we apply it to the weakest classical logics with pooling modalities and investigate the technique’s potential for the axiomatization of stronger logics, obtained by imposing well-known frame conditions on the models.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive Deontic Logics: A Survey</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/downloads/ifcolog00032.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">523-608</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">523</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Do mechanism-based social explanations make a case for methodological individualism?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Methodological individualism</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PLURALISM</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">REDUCTION</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific explanation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social explanations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social mechanisms</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-019-09446-w</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">50</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">263–282</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In the recent philosophy of social science literature, we notice an increasing support for mechanism-based social explanations. Earlier pleas for social mechanisms were often closely linked to defenses of methodological individualism. However, more recent contributions by, e.g. Daniel Little and Petri Ylikoski, seem to be loosening that link and develop a more sophisticated account-ascribing a less important role to microfoundations. In this paper, we want to review the impact of the social mechanisms-approach on methodological individualism and draw more radical conclusions with regard to the individualism/holism debate, severing the link between the social mechanisms-approach and individualism. Four steps will be taken in severing the link: (a) there are more than two levels of social explanation; (b) levels of explanation are perspectival, thus neither absolute, nor unique; (c) seeking microfoundations has a heuristic value, but so has seeking macrofoundations; (d) there are no general preference rules with respect to the level of social explanations. In conclusion, the answer to the title question is that the social mechanisms approach does not strengthen the case for methodological individualism.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tamminga, Allard</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Duijf, Hein</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The best we can do (extended abstract, submitted to LOFT)</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Choosing the right concept of &quot;right choices&quot; (technical report)</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frijters, Stef</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Condoravdi, Cleo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nair, Shyam</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pigozzi, Gabriella</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to take heroin (if at all). A new approach to detachment in deontic logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deontic Logic and Normative Systems: 14th International Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">London</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">317-335</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">submitted</style></work-type></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">François, Karen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ducheyne, Steffen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Allo, Patrick</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kennissystemen selectief wieden</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laat ons niet ernstig blijven. Huldeboek voor Jean Paul Van Bendegem</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Academia Press</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gent, België</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">227–244</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-94-014-5589-3</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Klein, Dominik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pointwise intersection in neighbourhood modal logic</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Oudheusden, Michiel</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beyond consensus? A reply to Alan Irwin</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY REVIEW AND REPLY COLLECTIVE</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">democracy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disclosure</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">meta-consensus</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">public participation in science</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific consensus</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">48–53</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tamminga, Allard</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Duijf, Hein</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Doing Without Nature</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Rationality, and Interaction (LORI)</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9-11/7/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VI</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sapporro</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Free Choice Permission in STIT</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logica Yearbook 2016</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year></dates><edition><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pavel Arazim and Tomáš Lávička</style></edition><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">289--303</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Oudheusden, Michiel</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Participation beyond consensus? Technology assessments, consensus conferences and democratic modulation. </style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social Epistemology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31 (6)</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article, we inquire into two contemporary participatory formats&lt;br /&gt;that seek to democratically intervene in scientific practice: the consensus&lt;br /&gt;conference and participatory technology assessment (pTA). We explain how&lt;br /&gt;these formats delegitimize conflict and disagreement by making a strong&lt;br /&gt;appeal to consensus. Based on our direct involvement in these formats and&lt;br /&gt;informed both by political philosophy and science and technology studies,&lt;br /&gt;we outline conceptions that contrast with the consensus ideal, including&lt;br /&gt;dissensus, disclosure, conflictual consensus and agonistic democracy.&lt;br /&gt;Drawing on the notion of meta-consensus and a distinction between&lt;br /&gt;four models of democracy (aggregative, deliberative, participatory and&lt;br /&gt;agonistic), we elaborate how a more positive valuation of conflict provides&lt;br /&gt;opportunities for mutual learning, the articulation of disagreement, and&lt;br /&gt;democratic modulation—three aspirations that are at the heart of most&lt;br /&gt;pTAs and consensus conferences. Disclosing the strengths and weaknesses&lt;br /&gt;of these different models is politically and epistemically useful, and should&lt;br /&gt;therefore be an integral part of the development of participation theory and&lt;br /&gt;process in science and technology.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">497</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederik Van De Putte</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">That will do: Logics of Deontic Necessity and Sufficiency</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Erkenntnis</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">82</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">473–511</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;table id=&quot;entry&quot; class=&quot;responsive&quot; style=&quot;margin-top: 10px;&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td class=&quot;pp-label&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td id=&quot;abstractElement&quot; class=&quot;content&quot;&gt;
&lt;div&gt;We study a logic for deontic necessity and sufficiency, as originally proposed in van Benthem :36–41, 1979). Building on earlier work in modal logic, we provide a sound and complete axiomatization for it, consider some standard extensions, and study other important properties. After that, we compare this logic to the logic of “obligation as weakest permission” from Anglberger et al. :807–827, 2015).&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive Logic Characterizations of Input/output Logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">104</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">869-916</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;We translate the unconstrained and constrained input/output-logics from [17, 18] to reflexive modal logics, using adaptive logics for the constrained case. The resulting reformulation has various advantages. First, we obtain a proof-theoretic (dynamic) characterization of input/output logics. Second, we demonstrate that our modal framework gives naturally rise to useful variants. Finally, the modal logics display a gain in expressive power over their original counterparts in the input/output framework.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">869</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive strategies and finite-conditional premise sets</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic and Computation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">+ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exu044</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1517-1539</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coarse Deontic Logic (short version)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deontic Logic and Normative Systems</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nice Embedding in Classical Logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">47-78</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;It is shown that a set of semi-recursive logics, including many fragments of &lt;strong&gt;CL&lt;/strong&gt; (Classical Logic), can be embedded within &lt;strong&gt;CL&lt;/strong&gt; in an interesting way. A logic belongs&lt;br /&gt;to the set iff it has a certain type of semantics, called nice semantics. The set includes&lt;br /&gt;many logics presented in the literature. The embedding reveals structural properties of the embedded logic. The embedding turns finite premise sets into finite premise sets. The partial decision methods for &lt;strong&gt;CL&lt;/strong&gt; that are goal directed with respect to &lt;strong&gt;CL&lt;/strong&gt; are turned into partial decision methods that are goal directed with respect to the embedded logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frederik Van De Putte</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Obligation as Weakest Permission: a Strongly Complete Axiomatization</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rew. Symb. Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">370-379</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In (Anglberger &lt;span class=&quot;italic&quot;&gt;et al.&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-symbolic-logic/article/obligation-as-weakest-permission-a-strongly-complete-axiomatization/006F16E83467F957889B6B2D04932263#ref1&quot;&gt;2015&lt;/a&gt;, Section 4.1), a deontic logic is proposed which explicates the idea that a formula &lt;span class=&quot;italic&quot;&gt;φ&lt;/span&gt; is obligatory if and only if it is (semantically speaking) the weakest permission. We give a sound and strongly complete, Hilbert style axiomatization for this logic. As a corollary, it is compact, contradicting earlier claims from Anglberger &lt;span class=&quot;italic&quot;&gt;et al.&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-symbolic-logic/article/obligation-as-weakest-permission-a-strongly-complete-axiomatization/006F16E83467F957889B6B2D04932263#ref1&quot;&gt;2015&lt;/a&gt;). In addition, we prove that our axiomatization is equivalent to Anglberger et al.’s infinitary proof system, and show that our results are robust w.r.t. certain changes in the underlying semantics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Froeyman, Anton</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kosolosky, Laszlo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social epistemology meets the philosophy of the humanities</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Foundations of science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21 (1)</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;From time to time, when I explain to a new acquaintance that Im a philosopher of science, my interlocutor will nod agreeably and remark that that surely means Im interested in the ethical status of various kinds of scientific research, the impact that science has had on our values, or the role that the sciences play in contemporary democracies. Although this common response hardly corresponds to what professional philosophers of science have done for the past decades, or even centuries, it is perfectly comprehensible. For there are large questions of the kinds just indicated, questions that deserve to be posed and answered, and an intelligent person might well think that philosophers of science are the people who do the posing and the answering (Kitcher in Science, truth and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. xi, 2001).&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Splitting and Relevance: Broadening the Scope of Parikh's Concepts</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">59</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">173 -205</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">234</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">173 </style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Which Style of Reasoning to Choose in the Face of Conflicting Information?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic and Computation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">361--380</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In the context of non-monotonic reasoning different kinds of consequence relations are defined for reasoning from (possibly) inconsistent information. Examples are consequence relations that are characterized in terms of maximal consistent subsets of the premise set. The &lt;em&gt;strong consequences&lt;/em&gt; are those formulas that follow by Classical Logic from every maximal consistent subset. The &lt;em&gt;weak consequences&lt;/em&gt; follow from some maximal consistent subset. The &lt;em&gt;free consequences&lt;/em&gt; follow from the set of formulas that belong to every maximal consistent subset. In this paper the question is discussed which of these consequence relations should be applied in which reasoning context. First the concerns that are expressed in the literature with respect to the usefulness of the weak consequences are addressed. Then it is argued that making weak inferences is sensible for some application contexts, provided one has a (dynamic) proof theory for the corresponding consequence relation. Such a dynamic proof theory is what adaptive logics offer. Finally, all this is illustrated by means of a very simple adaptive logic reconstruction of the free, strong, and weak consequences&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kosolosky, Laszlo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martini, Carlo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boumans, Marcel</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explicating ways of consensus-making in science and society: distinguishing the academic, the interface and the meta-consensus</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Experts and consensus in social science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">71–92</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, we shed new light on the epistemic struggle between establishing consensus and acknowledging plurality, by explicating different ways of consensus-making in science and society and examining the impact hereof on their field of intersection, i.e. consensus conferences (in particular those organized by the National Institute of Health). We draw a distinction between, what we call, academic and interface consensus, to capture the wide appeal to consensus in existing literature. We investigate such accounts - i.e. Solomon (2007), Beatty &amp;amp; Moore (2010) and Miller (2013)  as to put forth a new understanding of consensus-making, focusing on the meta-consensus. We further defend how (NIH) consensus conferences enable epistemic work, through demands of epistemic adequacy and contestability, contrary to the claim that consensus conferences miss a window for epistemic opportunity (Solomon, 2007). Paying attention to this dynamics surrounding consensus, moreover allows us to illustrate how the public understanding of science and the public use of the ideal of consensus could be well modified.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gervais, Raoul</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The 'green cheese' and 'red herring' problems reconsidered. Epistemological versus methodological tasks for Philosophers of Science</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">433-455</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Bal, Inge</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A new approach to classical relevance.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">82</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–31</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;n this paper we present a logic that determines when implications in a classical logic context express a relevant connection between antecedent and consequent. In contrast with logics in the relevance logic literature, we leave classical negation intact - in the sense that the law of non-contradiction can be used to obtain relevantly implications, as long as there is a connection between antecedent and consequent. On the other hand, we give up the requirement that our theory of relevance can define a new standard of deduction. We present and argue for a list of requirements that such a logical theory of classical relevance needs to meet and go on to formulate a system that respects each of these requirements. The presented system is a monotonic and transitive logic that extends the relevance logic ℜ with a richer relevant implication that allows for Disjunctive Syllogism and similar rules. This is achieved by interpreting the logical symbols in the antecedents in a stronger way than the logical symbols in consequents. A proof theory and an algebraic semantics are formulated and interesting metatheorems (soundness, completeness and the fact that it satisfies the requirements for classical relevance) are proven. Finally we give a philosophical motivation for our non-standard relevant implication and the asymmetric interpretation of antecedents and consequents.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Towards democratic models of science: exploring the case of scientific pluralism</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Perspectives on science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">149–172</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Scientific pluralism, a normative endorsement of the plurality or multiplicity of research approaches in science, has recently been advocated by several philosophers (e.g., Kellert et al. 2006, Kitcher 2001, Longino 2013, Mitchell 2009, and Chang 2010). Comparing these accounts of scientific pluralism, one will encounter quite some variation. We want to clarify the different interpretations of scientific pluralism by showing how they incarnate different models of democracy, stipulating the desired interaction among the plurality of research approaches in different ways. Furthermore, the example of scientific pluralism is used to advocate the application of democratic theory to philosophy of science problems in general. Drawing on the parallels between models of science and models of democracy, we can articulate how the plurality of research approaches in science should interact within a democratic framework as well as how to cultivate multiple research approaches in the epistemically most productive way possible. This will not only improve our understanding of scientific plurality, but it can also help us stipulating how different research approaches should interact to constitute the most objective account possible or how the ideal of scientific consensus has to be understood. Ultimately, developing democratic models of science bears on the question of how deeply science and democracy are entwined.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive logics: a parametric approach</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">+ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzu017</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">905-932</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">905</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Allo, Patrick</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Consistency of Peano Arithmetic. A Defeasible Perspective</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modestly Radical or Radically Modest. Festschrift for Jean Paul Van Bendegem on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11–59</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper proposes to replace \sys{PA}, Peano Arithmetic, by a theory \sys{APA} defined in terms of (i)&amp;nbsp;a set of axioms that is classically equivalent to the Peano axioms and (ii)&amp;nbsp;a defeasible logic that minimizes inconsistency, viz.\ an inconsistency-adaptive logic. If \sys{PA} is consistent, its set of theorems coincides with the set of \sys{APA}-theorems. If \sys{PA} is inconsistent, \sys{APA} is non-trivial and has the following remarkable property: there is a unique non-standard number that is its own successor and every `desirable' \sys{PA}-theorem is retained if restricted to the other numbers. The restriction can be expressed in the language of arithmetic. And there is much more.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Finn, Collin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zahle, Julie</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanatory strategies beyond the individualism/holism debate</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rethinking the individualism-holism debate</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">372</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">153–175</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9783319053431</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Starting from the plurality of explanatory strategies in the actual practice of socialscientists, I introduce a framework for explanatory pluralism  a normative endorsement of the plurality of forms and levels of explanation used by social scientists. Equipped with thisframework, central issues in the individualism/holism debate are revisited, namely emergence,reduction and the idea of microfoundations. Discussing these issues, we notice that in recentcontributions the focus has been shifting towards relationism, pluralism and interaction, awayfrom dichotomous individualism/holism thinking and a winner-takes-all approach. Then, thechallenge of the debate is no longer to develop the ultimate individualistic approach ordefending the holist approach, but rather how to be combine individualism and holism; howcan they co-exist, interact, be integrated or develop some division of labour, while making thebest out of the strengths and limitations of the respective explanatory strategies of holists andindividualists? Thus, the debate shifts to how exactly pluralism should be understood as thenext leading question, going beyond the current individualism/holism debate. The paper endswith a discussion and evaluation of different understandings of explanatory pluralismdefended in the literature.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Function ascription and explanation: elaborating an explanatory utility desideratum for ascriptions of technical functions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Erkenntnis</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">79</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1367–1389</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Current philosophical theorizing about technical functions is mainly focused on specifying conditions under which agents are justified in ascribing functions to technical artifacts. Yet, assessing the precise explanatory relevance of such function ascriptions is, by and large, a neglected topic in the philosophy of technical artifacts and technical functions. We assess the explanatory utility of ascriptions of technical functions in the following three explanation-seeking contexts: (i) why was artifact x produced?, (ii) why does artifact x not have the expected capacity to $\phi$;?, (iii) how does artifact x realize its capacity to $\phi$;? We argue that while function ascriptions serve a mere heuristic role in the first context, they have substantial explanatory leverage in the second and third context. In addition, we assess the relevance of function ascriptions in the context of engineering redesign. Here, function ascriptions also play a relevant role: (iv) they enable normative statements of the sort that component b functions better than component a. We unpack these claims by considering philosophical theories of technical functions, in particular the ICE theory, and engineering work on function ascription and explanation. We close the paper by relating our analysis to current debates on the explanatory power of mechanistic vis-à-vis functional explanations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Galavotti, Maria Carla</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dieks, Dennis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gonzalez, Wenceslao J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hartmann, Stephan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Uebel, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Marcel</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pluralists about pluralism? Different versions of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">New directions in the philosophy of science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">104–119</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9783319043814</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this contribution, I comment on Raffaella Campaner’s defense of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry (in this volume). In her paper, Campaner focuses primarily on explanatory pluralism in contrast to explanatory reductionism. Furthermore, she distinguishes between pluralists who consider pluralism to be a temporary state on the one hand and pluralists who consider it to be a persisting state on the other hand. I suggest that it would be helpful to distinguish more than those two versions of pluralism – different understandings of explanatory pluralism both within philosophy of science and psychiatry – namely moderate/temporary pluralism, anything goes pluralism, isolationist pluralism, integrative pluralism and interactive pluralism. Next, I discuss the pros and cons of these different understandings of explanatory pluralism. Finally, I raise the question of how to implement or operationalize explanatory pluralism in scientific practice; how to structure the “genuine dialogue” or shape “the pluralistic attitude” Campaner is referring to. As tentative answers, I explore a question-based framework for explanatory pluralism as well as social-epistemological procedures for interaction among competing approaches and explanations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reconciling Ontic and Epistemic Constraints on Mechanistic Explanation, Epistemically</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Axiomathes</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aug</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5–22</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I address the current debate on ontic versus epistemic conceptualizations of mechanistic explanation in the mechanisms literature. Illari recently argued that good explanations are subject to both ontic and epistemic constraints: they must describe mechanisms in the world (ontic aim) in such fashion that they provide understanding of their workings (epistemic aim). Elaborating upon Illaris integration account, I argue that causal role function discovery of mechanisms and their components is an epistemic prerequisite for achieving these two aims. This analysis extends Illaris account in important ways, putting more pressure on ontic readings of mechanistic explanation and providing an answer to the question how ontic and epistemic constraints on mechanistic explanation are related. I argue these point in terms of cases on memory research drawn from neuroscience and research on extinct neurogenetic mechanisms from early nervous systems biology.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Validating function-based design methods: an explanationist perspective</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy and Technology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">511 - 531</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Analysis of the adequacy of engineering design methods, as well as analysis of the utility of concepts of function often invoked in these methods, is a neglected topic in both philosophy of technology and in engineering proper. In this paper, I present an approachdubbed an explanationist perspectivefor assessing the adequacy of function-based design methods. Engineering design is often intertwined with explanation, for instance, in reverse engineering and subsequent redesign, knowledge base-assisted designing, and diagnostic reasoning. I argue that the presented approach is useful for validating function-based design methods with respect to their explanatory elements and that it supports assessment of the explanatory and design utility of function, and the different conceptualizations thereof, as used in such engineering design methods. I deploy two key desiderata from the explanation literature to assess the viability of function-based design methods: explanatorily relevant difference-making factors and counterfactual understanding defined in terms of what-if-things-had-been-different questions. I explicate the approach and its merits in terms of two case studies drawn from the engineering functional modeling literature: reverse engineering and redesign and malfunction analysis. I close the paper by discussing ramifications of the presented approach for the philosophy of design and the philosophy of explanation.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Becchi, Antonio</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bertoloni Meli, Domenico</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gamba, Enrico</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">'Argumentandi modus huius scientiae maximè proprius: ' Guidobaldo's mechanics and the question of mathematical principles</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guidobaldo del Monte (1545-1607) : theory and practice of the mathematical disciplines from Urbino to Europe</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.edition-open-access.de/media/proceedings/4/Proceedings4.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Edition Open Access</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9–34</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9783844242836</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermaas, Pieter</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kroes, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The conceptual elusiveness of engineering functions: a philosophical analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy and Technology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">159-185</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, we describe the conceptual elusiveness of the notion of function as used in engineering practice. We argue that it should be accepted as an ambiguous notion, and then review philosophical argumentations in which engineering functions occur in order to identify the consequences of this ambiguity. Function is a key notion in engineering, yet is used by engineers systematically in a variety of meanings. First, we demonstrate that this ambiguous use is rational for engineers by considering the role of functions in design methods and by analysing the ambiguity in terms of Kuhns notion of methodological incommensurability. Second, we discuss ontological and mereological analyses of engineering functions and describe a proof that subfunctions cannot formally be taken as parts of the functions they decompose. Engineering functions figure sometimes in philosophical work and are then typically taken as having an unambiguous, well-defined meaning. Finally, we therefore revisit work in philosophy of technology on the dual nature of technical artefacts, in philosophy of science on functional and mechanistic explanations, and in philosophy of biology on biological functions, and explore the consequences of the fact that engineering function is an ambiguous notion. It is argued that one of these consequences may be that also the notion of biological function has an ambiguous meaning&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Default Assumptions and Selection Functions: A Generic Framework for Non-monotonic Logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of MICAI2013, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8264</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">54-67</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;We investigate a generalization of so-called default-assumption consequence relations, obtained by replacing the consequence relation of classical logic with an arbitrary supraclassical, compact Tarski-logic, and using arbitrary selection functions on sets of sets of defaults. Both generalizations are inspired by various approaches in non-monotonic logic and belief revision. We establish some meta-theoretic properties of the resulting systems. In addition, we compare them with two other frameworks from the literature on non-monotonic logic, viz. adaptive logics and selection semantics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Vreese, Leen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to Study Scientific Explanation?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific Explanation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25–37</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper investigates the working-method of three important philosophers of explanation: Carl Hempel, Philip Kitcher and Wesley Salmon. We argue that they do three things: (i) construct an explication in the sense of Carnap, which then is used as a tool to make (ii) descriptive and (iii) normative claims about the explanatory practice of scientists. We also show that they did well with respect to (i), but that they failed to give arguments for their descriptive and normative claims. We think it is the responsibility of current philosophers of explanation to go on where Hempel, Kitcher and Salmon failed. However, we should go on in a clever way. We call this clever way the pragmatic approach to scientific explanation. We clarify what this approach consists in and defend it.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reydon, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boon, Mieke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Houkes, Wybo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermaas, Pieter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The ICE-theory of technical functions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metascience</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23–44</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Urbaniak, Rafal</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Induction from a single instance: Incomplete frames</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Foundations of science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">641–653</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper we argue that an existing theory of concepts called dynamic frame theory, although not developed with that purpose in mind, allows for the precise formulation of a number of problems associated with induction from a single instance. A key role is played by the distinction we introduce between complete and incomplete dynamic frames, for incomplete frames seem to be very elegant candidates for the format of the background knowledge used in induction from a single instance. Furthermore, we show how dynamic frame theory provides the terminology to discuss the justification and the fallibility of incomplete frames. In the Appendix, we give a formal account of incomplete frames and the way these lead to induction from a single instance.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Non-monotonic set theory as a pragmatic foundation of mathematics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Foundations of science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">655–680</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I propose a new approach to the foundation of mathematics: non-monotonic set theory. I present two completely different methods to develop set theories based on adaptive logics. For both theories there is a finitistic non-triviality proof and both theories contain (a subtle version of) the comprehension axiom schema. The first theory contains only a maximal selection of instances of the comprehension schema that do not lead to inconsistencies. The second allows for all the instances, also the inconsistent ones, but restricts the conclusions one can draw from them in order to avoid triviality. The theories have enough expressive power to form a justification/explication for most of the established results of classical mathematics. They are therefore not limited by Gödels incompleteness theorems. This remarkable result is possible because of the non-recursive character of the final proofs of theorems of non-monotonic theories. I shall argue that, precisely because of the computational complexity of these final proofs, we cannot claim that non-monotonic theories are ideal foundations for mathematics. Nevertheless, thanks to their strength, first order language and the recursive &lt;em&gt;dynamic&lt;/em&gt; (defeasible) proofs of theorems of the theory, the non-monotonic theories form (what I call) interesting &lt;em&gt;pragmatic&lt;/em&gt; foundations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Preferential Semantics using Non-smooth Preference Relations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Philosophical Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">903–942</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper studies the properties of eight semantic consequence relations defined from a Tarski-logic &lt;strong&gt;L&lt;/strong&gt; and a preference relation &amp;amp;\#8826;. They are equivalent to Shohams so-called preferential entailment for smooth model structures, but avoid certain problems of the latter in non-smooth configurations. Each of the logics can be characterized in terms of what we call multi-selection semantics. After discussing this type of semantics, we focus on some concrete proposals from the literature, checking a number of meta-theoretic properties and elaborating on their intuitive motivation. As it turns out, many of their meta-properties only hold in case &amp;amp;\#8826; is transitive. To tackle this problem, we propose slight modifications of each of the systems, showing the resulting logics to behave better at the intuitive level and in metatheoretic terms, for arbitrary &amp;amp;\#8826;.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prime implicates and relevant belief revision</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic and Computation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109–119</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article discusses Parikhs axiom of relevance in belief revision, and recalls some results from Kourousias and Makinson (2007, J. Symbolic Logic, &lt;strong&gt;72&lt;/strong&gt;, 9941002) in this context. The crucial distinction is emphasized between the uniqueness of the finest splitting of K and the fact that K has several normal forms associated with that finest splitting. The main new result of this article is a new proof for the theorem that the set of prime implicates of K is a normal form for the finest splitting of K. It is explained how this proof avoids a mistake in an earlier proof from Wu and Zhang (2010, Knowledge-Based Syst., &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt;, 7076). As a corollary, relevance can be re-defined without reference to the finest splitting, using the notion of path-relevance from Makinson (2009, J. Appl. Logic, &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt;, 377387). Finally, a weak yet sufficient condition for irrelevance is presented.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Vreese, Leen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific explanation</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">93</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789400764453</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper investigates the working-method of three important philosophers of explanation: Carl Hempel, Philip Kitcher and Wesley Salmon. We argue that they do three things: (i) construct an explication in the sense of Carnap, which then is u sed as a tool to make (ii) descriptive and (iii) normative claims about the explanatory practice of scientists. We also show that they did well with respect to (i), but that they failed to give argume nts for their descriptive and normative claims. We think it is the responsibility of current philosoph ers of explanation to go on where Hempel, Kitcher and Salmon failed. However, we should go on in a cl ever way. We call this clever way the pragmatic approach to scientific explanation. We clarify wha t this approach consists in and defend it.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Strong, universal and provably non-trivial set theory by means of adaptive logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">108-125</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article, I present a non-trivial but inconsistent set theory based on unrestricted comprehension. The theory is provably non-trivial and strong enough for most of the applications of regular mathematics. This is realized by distinguishing between strong and weak set membership and allowing for the derivation of strong membership from weak membership whenever this is not problematic (it does not lead to paradoxes). This idea of applying rules whenever unproblematic is formalized by means of an adaptive logic.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Three formats of prioritized adaptive logics: a comparative study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127–159</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;A broad range of defeasible reasoning forms has been explicated by prioritized adaptive logics. However, the relative lack in meta-theory of many of these logics stands in sharp contrast to the frequency of their application. This article presents the first comparative study of a large group of prioritized adaptive logics. Three formats of such logics are discussed: superpositions of adaptive logics, hierarchic adaptive logics from F. Van De Putte (2011, &lt;em&gt;Log. J. IGPL, doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzr025&lt;/em&gt;) and lexicographic adaptive logics from F. Van De Putte and C. Stra&amp;amp;\#223;er (2012, &lt;em&gt;Log. Anal., forthcoming&lt;/em&gt;). We restrict the scope to logics that use the strategy Minimal Abnormality. It is shown that the semantic characterizations of these systems are equivalent and that they are all sound with respect to either of these characterizations. Furthermore, sufficient conditions for the completeness and equivalence of the consequence relations of the three formats are established. Some attractive properties, including Fixed Point and the Deduction Theorem, are shown to hold whenever these conditions are obeyed.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gauderis, Tjerk</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Abduction of generalizations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theoria - revista de teoria historia y fundamentos de la ciencia</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">27</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">345–364</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Abduction of generalizations is the process in which explanatory hypotheses are formed for generalizations such as pineapples taste sweet or rainbows appear when the sun breaks through the rain. This phenomenon has received little attention in formal logic and philosophy of science. The current paper remedies this lacuna by first giving an overview of some general characteristics of this process, elaborating on its ubiquity in scientific and everyday reasoning. Second, the adaptive logic LA &amp;amp;\#8704; is presented to explicate this process formally&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Dynamics of Relevance: Adaptive Belief Revision</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Synthese</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">187</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-42</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper presents eight (previously unpublished) adaptive logics for belief revision, each of which define a belief revision operation in the sense of the AGM framework. All these revision operations are shown to satisfy the six basic AGM postulates for belief revision, and Parikhs axiom of Relevance. Using one of these logics as an example, we show how their proof theory gives a more dynamic flavor to belief revision than existing approaches. It is argued that this turns belief revision (that obeys Relevance) into a more natural undertaking, where analytic steps are performed only as soon as they turn out to be necessary in order to uphold certain beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Extending the standard format of adaptive logics to the prioritized case</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">220</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">55</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">601–641</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper introduces a new format for reasoning with prioritized stan- dards of normality. It is applicable in a broad variety of contexts, e.g. dealing with (possibly conflicting) prioritized belief bases or combining different reasoning methods in a prioritized way. The format is a gener- alization of the standard format of adaptive logics (see [4]). Every logic that is formulated within it has a straightforward semantics in the style of Shohams selection semantics (see [22]) and a dynamic proof theory. Fur- thermore, it can count on a rich meta-theory that inherits the attractive features of the standard format, such as soundness and completeness, re- flexivity, idempotence, cautious monotonicity, and many other properties.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Generic Formats for Prioritized Adaptive Logics. With Applications in Deontic Logic, Abduction and Belief Revision</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May 24</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Joke Meheus and Peter Verdée&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modelling defeasible reasoning by means of adaptive logic games</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">417–437</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article, I present a dynamic logic game for defeasible reasoning. I argue that, as far as defeasible reasoning is concerned, one should distinguish between practical and ideal rationality. Starting from the adaptive logic framework, I formalize both rationality notions by means of logic games. The presented adaptive logic games are based on (i) standard logic games on the one hand and (ii) dynamic proof procedures for adaptive logic on the other hand. The games are similar to standard logic games, but have the extra property that some moves are revisable. This is handled by means of a main control game, which starts different standard logic games. I argue that the adaptive logic games form intuitive reasoning models for rationality in defeasible reasoning contexts. Moreover, I will also demonstrate that the games give a good insight in the computational complexity of defeasible reasoning forms.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gervais, Raoul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pragmatic approaches to explanation applied to the cognitive sciences: two types of explanation-seeking questions compared</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">131–137</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A proof procedure for adaptive logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">743-766</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article, I present a procedure that generates proofs for finally derivable adaptive logic consequences. A proof procedure for the inconsistency adaptive logic CLuNr is already presented in [7]. In this article a procedure for CLuNm is presented and the results for both logics are generalized to all adaptive logics, on the presupposition that there exists a proof procedure for the lower limit logic. The generated proofs are so called goal-directed proofs, i.e. proofs that (i) start with the formula (the goal) of which one wants to know whether it is a consequence of a certain premise set and (ii) only consist of lines that may potentially be useful for proving or disproving the goal. The goal-directed proofs form good explications of actual problem-solving reasoning processes.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proof Theories for Superpositions of Adaptive Logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–33</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The standard format for adaptive logics offers a generic and unifying formal framework for defeasible reasoning forms. One of its main distinguishing features is a dynamic proof theory by means of which it is able to explicate actual reasoning. In many applications it has proven very useful to superpose sequences of adaptive logics, such that each logic treats the consequence set of its predecessor as premise set. Although attempts have been made to define dynamic proof theories for some of the resulting logics, no generic proof theory is available yet. Moreover, the existing proof theories for concrete superpositions are suboptimal in various respects: the derivability relations characterized by these proposals are often not adequate with respect to the consequence relation of the superposed adaptive logics and in some cases they even trivialize premise sets. An adequate and generic proof theory is needed in order to meet the requirement of explicating defeasible reasoning in terms of superpositions of adaptive logics. This paper presents two generic proof theories for superpositions of adaptive logics in standard format. By means of simple examples, the basic ideas behind these proof theories are illustrated and it is shown how the older proposals are inadequate.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rationally evaluating inconsistent theories</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PHILOSOPHICA</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">86</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">83–99</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;What happens if one applies the &quot;evaluation methodology&quot; of The Kuipers to inconsistent theories? What happens if one applies the &quot;problem solving methodology&quot; of Larry Laudan to inconsistent theories? We argue that in both cases something unacceptable happens. We show that application of Kuipers' methodology to inconsistent theories leads to a methodological stalemate: inconsistent theories are incomparable to consistent ones. Then we show that according to Laudan's methodology inconsistent theories are always better than consistent ones. Finally, we offer partial solutins to these problems.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lefevere, Merel</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Regt, Henk</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Okasha, Samir</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hartmann, Stephan</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The role of unification in explanations of facts</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EPSA Philosophy of Science 2009</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amsterdam</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">403-413</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789400724037</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In the literature on scientific explanation, there is a classical distinction between explanations of facts and explanations of laws. This paper is about explanations of facts. Our aim is to analyse the role of unification in explanations of this kind. We discuss five positions with respect to this role, argue for two of them and refute the three others.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Towards More Conflict-Tolerant Deontic Logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brussel</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-8</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Ethical Consistency&lt;/em&gt;, Bernard Williams vindicated the possibility of moral conflicts; he proposed to consistently allow for the presence of such conflicts within the logic of &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt;. In determining the nature of moral conflict, Williams stressed its contingency. In this paper, Williams characterization of moral conflict is defended. However, Williams solution for consistently allowing for such conflicts within the logic of &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt; is shown to be too crude. Whereas Williams rejects &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; applications of the agglomeration rule in the logic of &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt;, it is shown that a more sophisticated approach is needed. An alternative solution is presented in which the application of the agglomeration rule is made conditional upon the principle that&quot; &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt;implies &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Le Roy, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stalpaert, Christel</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aerts, Diederik</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">What is there beyond Mertonian and dollar green science? Exploring the contours of epistemic democracy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Drunk on capitalism : an interdisciplinary reflection on market economy, art and science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">35–48</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789400720817</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The story is sometimes told as follows: Once science was a disinterested activity giving scientists the opportunity to freely solve the puzzle of nature to the benefit of all. Nowadays science seems more and more driven by the search for patents and dollars compelling scientists to follow the logic of capitalism and corporatization. Take-home lesson: science is for sale and we should do everything to reverse this evolution. In this contribution, I want to analyze the narrator’s assumptions implicit in this account of science. In particular, the rosy description of earlier disinterested forms of scientific research will be questioned, as well as the lack of alternatives to the dichotomy disinterested versus corporatized. I will argue that beyond the dichotomy an interest-driven science can be conceived framed within an epistemic democracy.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aerts, Diederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D'Hooghe, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pinxten, Rik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wallerstein, Immanuel</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An atlas for the social world: what should it (not) look like? Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in the social sciences</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, Science and Us: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Worlds, Cultures and Society.</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, science and us : interdisciplinary perspectives on worlds, cultures and society</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing Company</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43–72</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789814355056</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Starting from the analogy between theories and maps, I will spell out which interdisciplinary approach to the social sciences can provide us with the atlas we need to navigate in the social world. After comparing the features of theories and maps in section 1, I elaborate how different social theories can collaborate or get into a dialogue in section 2, summarizing the different strategies that have been defended for interdisciplinarity in social science: theory-, method-, metaphysics-, and question-driven interdisciplinarity, which I will illustrate with actual proposals made by, inter alia, World-Systems Analysis, Critical Realism and Economics Imperialism. Building on the framework of explanatory pluralism I have been developing before, I will make a case for question-driven interdisciplinarity in section 3. My argument for question-driven interdisciplinarity will be illustrated in section 4 by discussing recent developments in economics (i.e., the debate between the orthodoxy and heterodox theories, the pleas for pluralism, and the impact of globalisation –and related institutional developments- on economics as a discipline). In conclusion, the contours of an adequate atlas for the social world should become clearer; when to use the different maps, how to activate the dialogue between social scientific disciplines in order to draw the different maps, and the risks of globalisation for social science (and adequate map making).&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">François, Karen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Löwe, Benedikt</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Müller, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the curious historical coincidence of algebra and double-entry bookkeeping</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Foundations of the formal sciences VII : bringing together philosophy and sociology of science</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studies in Logic</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/logic/?00021</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109–130</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9781848900493</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jarvie, Ian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zamora-Bonilla, Jesus</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanation in the social sciences</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of the Social Sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sage Publications</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">London</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">632–646</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9781847874009</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This chapter gives an overview of the philosophical debates concerning explanation in the social sciences.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hierarchic adaptive logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">45–72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article discusses the proof theory, semantics and meta-theory of a class of adaptive logics, called hierarchic adaptive logics. Their specific characteristics are illustrated throughout the article with the use of one exemplary logic HKx, an explicans for reasoning with prioritized belief bases. A generic proof theory for these systems is defined, together with a less complex proof theory for a subclass of them. Soundness and a restricted form of completeness are established with respect to a non-redundant semantics. It is shown that all hierarchic adaptive logics are reflexive, have the strong reassurance property and that a subclass of them is a fixed point for a broad class of premise sets. Finally, they are compared to a different yet related class of adaptive logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Incommensurability and rationality in engineering design: the case of functional decomposition</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY &amp; TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY ELECTRONIC JOURNAL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">118–136</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Vreese, Leen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Indispensability arguments in favour of reductive explanations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal for General Philosophy of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33–46</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Instances of explanatory reduction are often advocated on metaphysical grounds; given that the only real things in the world are subatomic particles and their interaction, we have to try to explain everything in terms of the laws of physics. In this paper, we show that explanatory reduction cannot be defended on metaphysical grounds. Nevertheless, indispensability arguments for reductive explanations can be developed, taking into account actual scientific practice and the role of epistemic interests. Reductive explanations might be indispensable to address some epistemic interest answering a specific explanation-seeking question in the most accurate, adequate and efficient way. Just like explanatory pluralists often advocate the indispensability of higher levels of explanation pointing at the pragmatic value of the explanatory information obtained on these higher levels, we argue that explanatory reduction – traditionally understood as the contender of pluralism – can be defended in a similar way. The pragmatic value reductionist, lower level explanations might have in the biomedical sciences and the social sciences is illustrated by some case studies.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kosolosky, Laszlo</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The intended window of epistemic opportunity: a comment on Miriam Solomon</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, I argue that Miriam Solomon fails to show that medical consensus conferences, as organised by the National Institute of Health (NIH), miss the intended window of epistemic opportunity (Solomon, 2007: 170), and thus typically take place after the experts have reached consensus. This is done, on the one hand, by differentiating between, what I intend to call, ‘academic’ and ‘non-academic consensus’, and, on the other hand, by analyzing the arguments and argumentation style Solomon uses to make her claim explicit. At the very least, the overall argument suggests that her statement is inadequately supported, if not that the opposite claim is true. In this manner, I intend to bring additional insight into the notion of ‘consensus’ when applied in scientific practice. Any decision as to change the NIH consensus development program should take these actual achievements into account.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mol, Liesbeth</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">François, Karen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Löwe, Benedikt</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Müller, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Looking for busy beavers. A socio-philosophical study of a computer-assisted proof</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Foundations of the Formal Sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">61–90</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them&quot;&lt;/em&gt; John von Neumann&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leite, Joao</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Torroni, Paolo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agotnes, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boella, Guido</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Torre, Leon</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A paraconsistent multi-agent framework for dealing with normative conflicts</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA XII)</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22359-4</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">312-329</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9783642223587</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In a multi-agent deontic setting, normative conflicts can take a variety of different logical forms. In this paper, we present a very general characterization of such conflicts, including both intra- and inter-agent normative conflicts, conflicts between groups of agents, conflicts between obligations and permissions, and conflicts between contradictory norms. In order to account for the consistent possibility of this wide variety of conflict-types, we present a paraconsistent deontic logic, i.e. a logic that invalidates the classical principle of non-contradiction. Next, we strengthen this logic within the adaptive logics framework for defeasible reasoning. The resulting inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic interprets a given set of norms 'as consistently as possible'.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Goebel, R</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Strong paraconsistency by separating composition and decomposition in classical logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">WoLLIC 2011 Proceedings LNAI Series</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20920-8\_26</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">364220919X</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I elaborate a proof system that is able to prove all classical first order logic consequences of consistent premise sets, without proving trivial consequences of inconsistent premises (as in A, ¬A\,\unmatched{22a2}\,B). Essentially this result is obtained by formally distinguishing consequences that are the result of merely decomposing the premises into their subformulas from consequences that may be the result of also composing ‘new’, more complex formulas. I require that, whenever ‘new’ formulas are derived, they are to be preceded by a special +-symbol and these +-preceded formulas are not to be decomposed. By doing this, the proofs are separated into a decomposition phase followed by a composition phase. The proofs are recursive, axiomatizable and, as they do not trivialize inconsistent premise sets, they define a very strong non-transitive paraconsistent logic, for which I also provide an adequate semantics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Eck, Dingmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.603692</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11-12</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">839–858</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Governatori, Guido</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sartor, Giovanni</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Avoiding Deontic Explosion by Contextually Restricting Aggregation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2010)</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dordrecht</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, we present an adaptive logic for deontic conflicts, called \sys{P2.1}$^r$, that is based on Goble's logic \sys{SDL}$a$\sys{P}$e$–-a bimodal extension of Goble's logic \sys{P} that invalidates aggregation for all \emph{prima facie} obligations. The logic \sys{P2.1}$^r$ has several advantages with respect to \sys{SDL}$a$\sys{P}$e$. For consistent sets of obligations it yields the same results as Standard Deontic Logic and for inconsistent sets of obligations, it validates aggregation ``as much as possible''. It thus leads to a richer consequence set than \sys{SDL}$a$\sys{P}$e$. The logic \sys{P2.1}$^r$ avoids Goble's criticisms against other non-adjunctive systems of deontic logic. Moreover, it can handle all the `toy examples' from the literature as well as more complex ones.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Vreese, Leen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D'Hooghe, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disentangling Causal Pluralism</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, Science and Us. Studies of Analytical Metaphysics.</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing Company</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">207–223</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">981-4295-81-7</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Causal pluralism is increasingly gaining interest as a promising alternative for monistic approaches toward causation. However, although the debate is scarcely out of the egg, the term ‘causal pluralism’ already covers diverse meanings. This creates confusion, and to remedy that confusion, it is necessary to discern different kinds of pluralistic approaches to causation and different possible positions within them. In this paper, I argue for a general distinction between conceptual causal pluralism, metaphysical causal pluralism and epistemological-methodological causal pluralism. I mainly focus on metaphysical approaches to causation and discern herein four possible positions: metaphysical causal constructivism, metaphysical causal monism, weak metaphysical causal pluralism, and strong metaphysical causal pluralism. Each of these positions are further related to their most obvious conceptual counterpart, specifically conceptual causal monism or conceptual causal pluralism.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Winter, Jan</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Distorted Research Agenda in the Health Sciences and James Robert Browns Policy Proposal.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://logica.ugent.be/centrum/preprints/De_Winter_(2012)_-_Brown.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Vreese, Leen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanatory pluralism in the medical sciences: theory and practice</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">371–390</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Explanatory pluralism is the view that the best form and level of explanation depends on the kind of question one seeks to answer by the explanation, and that in order to answer all questions in the best way possible, we need more than one form and level of explanation. In the first part of this article, we argue that explanatory pluralism holds for the medical sciences, at least in theory. However, in the second part of the article we show that medical research and practice is actually not fully and truly explanatory pluralist yet. Although the literature demonstrates a slowly growing interest in non-reductive explanations in medicine, the dominant approach in medicine is still methodologically reductionist. This implies that non-reductive explanations often do not get the attention they deserve. We argue that the field of medicine could benefit greatly by reconsidering its reductive tendencies and becoming fully and truly explanatory pluralist. Nonetheless, trying to achieve the right balance in the search for and application of reductive and non-reductive explanations will in any case be a difficult exercise.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">From the second unknown to the symbolic equation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Aspects of Symbolic Reasoning in Early Modern Mathematics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57–102</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-1-84890-017-2</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The symbolic equation slowly emerged during the course of the sixteenth century as a new mathematical concept as well as a mathematical object on which new operations were made possible. Where historians have of- ten pointed at Francois Viète as the father of symbolic algebra, we would like to emphasize the foundations on which Viète could base his &lt;em&gt;logistica speciosa.&lt;/em&gt; The period between Cardanos &lt;em&gt;Practica Arithmeticae&lt;/em&gt; of 1539 and Gosselins &lt;em&gt;De arte magna&lt;/em&gt; of 1577 has been crucial in providing the necessary build- ing blocks for the transformation of algebra from rules for problem solving to the study of equations. In this paper we argue that the so-called second unknown or the &lt;em&gt;Regula quantitates&lt;/em&gt; steered the development of an adequate symbolism to deal with multiple unknowns and aggregates of equations. Dur- ing this process the very concept of a symbolic equation emerged separate from previous notions of what we call co-equal polynomials.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Aspects of Symbolic Reasoning in Early Modern Mathematics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studies in Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">302</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-1-84890-017-2</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This book presents a selection of peer-reviewed papers which were presented on a conference organized in Ghent, Belgium, from 27 till 29 August, 2009. The conference was given the title Philosophical Aspects of Symbolic Reasoning in Early modern Science and Mathematics (PASR). For this book we selected papers which deal with the consequences for mathematics in particular, hence the omission of ‘science’ in the title of this book. Another selection, dealing with the understanding of nature and a broader range of topics, will appear in the journal Foundations of Science. The conference was sponsored by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and Ghent University, which indirectly made this book possible. We also have to thank the other members of the programme committee Marco Panza, Chikara Sasaki, and Erik Weber and our keynote speakers Jens Høyrup, Doug Jesseph, Eberhard Knobloch, Marco Panza, Mathias Schemmel and Michel Serfati. Five of their papers are included in this volume. Most of the papers benefited from valuable and sometimes substantive comments by our referees which must remain anonymous. Special thanks to Michael Barany who assisted in the editorial process.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aerts, Diederik</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">What About Interdisciplinarity Within Philosophy?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, Science and Us: Bridging Knowledge and Its Implications For Our Perspectives on the World</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing Company</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10–25</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D'Hooghe, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Why social emergence? Discussing the use of analytical metaphysics in social theory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, science and us : studies of analytical metaphysics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789814299053\_0010</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing Company</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789814295819</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Recently the concept of emergence has been used in social theory to understand and defend social causation and nonreductive individualism (cf., Refs. 1, 2 and 3). In this paper, I want to analyse what the contribution of analytical metaphysics, and, in particular, the concept of emergence is, or might be, to the discussion in social theory. Especially Keith Sawyer's use of emergence in his defence of social explanation will be scrutinized. Therefore, it will be important to distinguish ontological from epistemological emergence. Where Sawyer focuses on ontological emergence, I will argue that social explanation might better be defended by putting emphasis on pragmatic aspects of explanation and considering emergence as an epistemological category.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Tim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Provijn, Dagmar</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Speybroeck, Linda</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Braeckman, Johan</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">William Harvey en de ontdekking van de bloedsomloop.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fascinerend Leven. Markante Figuren en Ideeën uit de Geschiedenis van de Biologie.</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nieuwezijds</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amsterdam</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In print&lt;/p&gt;</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Waart van Gulik, Stephan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive fuzzy logics for contextual hedge interpretation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic, Language and Information</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-009-9084-y</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">333–356</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The article presents several adaptive fuzzy hedge logics. These logics are designed to perform a specific kind of hedge detection. Given a premise set Γ that represents a series of communicated statements, the logics can check whether some predicate occurring in Γ may be interpreted as being (implicitly) hedged by technically, strictly speaking or loosely speaking, or simply non-hedged. The logics take into account both the logical constraints of the premise set as well as conceptual information concerning the meaning of potentially hedged predicates (stored in the memory of the interpreter in question). The proof theory of the logics is non-monotonic in order to enable the logics to deal with possible non-monotonic interpretation dynamics (this is illustrated by means of several concrete proofs). All the adaptive fuzzy hedge logics are also sound and strongly complete with respect to their [0,1]-semantics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lycke, Hans</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Adaptive Logics Approach to Abduction</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researcher Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">{Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789065690432</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive Logics using the Minimal Abnormality strategy are \$\textbackslashPi\^ 1\_1\$-complex</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Synthese</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9291-5</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">93–104</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article complexity results for adaptive logics using the minimal abnormality strategy are presented. It is proven here that the consequence set of some recursive premise sets is Pi(1)(1)-complete. So, the complexity results in ( Horsten and Welch, Synthese 158: 41- 60, 2007) are mistaken for adaptive logics using the minimal abnormality strategy.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Causation, unification and the adequacy of explanations of facts</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theoria</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">301–320</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Pluralism with respect to the structure of explanations of facts is not uncommon. Wesley Salmon, for instance, distinguished two types of explanation: causal explanations (which provide insight in the causes of the fact we want to explain) and unification explanations (which fit the explanandum into a unified world view). The pluralism which Salmon and others have defended is compatible with several positions about the exact relation between these two types of explanations. We distinguish four such positions, and argue in favour of one of them. We also compare our results with the views of some authors who have recently written on this subject.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pieters, Eva</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&quot;Clear Moon, Frost soon&quot;. An introduction to the Study of Meteorological Practices in the Low Countries (1550-1850)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researcher Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">{Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789065690432</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dynamics of Reason and the Kantian Project</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">76</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">389–400</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;I show why Michael Friedman’s idea that we should view new constitutive frameworks introduced in paradigm-change as members of a convergent series, introduces an uncomfortable tension in his views. It cannot be justified on realist grounds, as this would compromise his Kantian perspective, but his own appeal to a Kantian regulative ideal of reason cannot do the job either. I then explain a way to make better sense of the rationality of paradigm-change on what I take to Friedman’s own terms.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the epistemological foundations of the law of the lever</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studies in History and Philosophy of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.06.001</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">40</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">315–318</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I challenge Paolo Palmieris reading of the Mach-Vailati debate on Archimedess proof of the law of the lever. I argue that the actual import of the debate concerns the possible epistemic (as opposed to merely pragmatic) role of mathematical arguments in empirical physics, and that construed in this light Vailati carries the upper hand. This claim is defended by showing that Archimedess proof of the law of the lever is not a way of appealing to a non-empirical source of information, but a way of explicating the mathematical structure that can represent the empirical information at our disposal in the most general way.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D'Hooghe, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Introduction: Contemporary Analytic Metaphysics, Its Crisis and Challenge</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, Science and Us: Studies of Analytical Metaphysics. A Selection of Topics From a Methodological Perspective</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing Company</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4–9</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-981-4295-81-9</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Young Researchers Present their Work</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789065690432</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mol, Liesbeth</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mathematics through man-computer interaction. A study of the early years of computing.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researcher Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789065690432</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Waart van Gulik, Stephan</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van den Bossche, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandemeulebroecke, R.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Menselijke rationaliteit en identiteit.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanismen</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VUB Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">163-172</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Wat volgt is een aanzet tot een zuiver beschrijvende analyse van de relatie tussen de ontwikkeling van de menselijke identiteit en de drie sociaal- psychologische fenomenen xenofobie, etnocentrisme en tolerantie. Het werkkader voor deze analyse is een conceptueel, speculatief model van de menselijke rationaliteit.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Urbaniak, Rafal</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rostalska, Agnieszka</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modal Logic and Philosophy. A case study.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brussel</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">79-83</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the Nature and Origin of Algebraic Symbolism</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">New Perspectives on Mathematical Practices. Essays in Philosophy and History of Mathematics.</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/6810/6810\_chap01.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-981-281-222-3</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primiero, Giuseppe</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A note on constructive modalities for information</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brussel</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Drouet, Isabelle</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Probabilistic Analyses and the Humean Conception of the Relationship between Levels of Causality</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brussel</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68–72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The problem with(out) consensus: The scientific consensus, deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The social sciences and democracy</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Social Sciences and Democracy</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palgrave Macmillan</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">121–142</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-0230224391</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Urbaniak, Rafal</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reasoning with dynamic conceptual frames.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2008</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brussel</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">84-89</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Langhe, Rogier</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libert, Thierry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Paemel, Geert</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trading off explanatory virtues</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">{Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The paper draws on Graham Allison’s case-study of the Cuban Missile Crisis in which three different accounts are constructed from three different explanatory models, each situated at a different level of analysis. First, it is shown that each model produces genuine explanations which could not have been arrived at from one of the other accounts. With this prima facie case for pluralism in hand, the indispensability of the different models is then accounted for by linking the relevance of each model to different explanatory contexts.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the Transparency of Defeasible Logics: Equivalent Premise Sets, Equivalence of Their Extensions, and Maximality of the Lower Limit</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">207</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">281–304</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt; 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.&lt;br /&gt; 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.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Regt, Henk</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leonelli, Sabina</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eigner, Kai</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Understanding in political science: the plurality of epistemic interests</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific Understanding. Philosophical Perspectives</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">University of Pittsburgh Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">298–313</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9780822943785</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Varieties of Democracy in Science Policy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Social Sciences and Democracy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palgrave Macmillan</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">181–194</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9780230224391</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Where the Epistemic and the Political Meet.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Social Sciences and Democracy</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Social Sciences and Democracy</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palgrave Macmillan</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–13</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-0230224391</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Clercq, Kristof</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yes Fellows, Most Human Reasoning is Complex</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Synthese</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9268-4</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">166</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">113–131</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper answers the philosophical contentions defended in Horsten and Welch (2007, Synthese, 158, 41-60). It contains a description of the standard format of adaptive logics, analyses the notion of dynamic proof required by those logics, discusses the means to turn such proofs into demonstrations, and argues that, notwithstanding their formal complexity, adaptive logics are important because they explicate an abundance of reasoning forms that occur frequently, both in scientific contexts and in common sense contexts.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De-ontologizing the debate on social explanations: a pragmatic approach based on epistemic interests.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human Studies</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">423–442</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In a recent paper on realism and pragmatism published in this journal, Osmo Kivinen and Tero Piiroinen have been pleading for more methodological work in the philosophy of the social sciences-refining the conceptual tools of social scientists-and less philosophically ontological theories. Following this de-ontologizing approach, we scrutinize the debates on social explanation and contribute to the development of a pragmatic social science methodology. Analyzing four classic debates concerning explanation in the social sciences, we propose to shift the debate away from (a) the ontologizing defenses of forms of social explanation, and (b) a winner-takes-all-approach. Instead, we advocate (c) a pragmatic approach towards social explanation, elaborating a rigorous framework for explanatory pluralism detached from the debates on social ontology.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Tim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Keinänen, Markku</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dispositions pace Armstrong.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Problems from Armstrong</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Philosophica Fennica</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">84</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127–154</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789519264660</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fullbrook, Edward</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanatory Pluralism.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pluralist Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zed Books</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">151-170</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Waart van Gulik, Stephan</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Makinson, David</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wansing, Heinrich</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Non-Scalar Hedges</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Towards Mathematical Philosophy</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trends in Logic</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kluwer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">233-247</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2: 458508, 1973), George Lakoff proposes a fuzzy semantics for the non-scalar hedges &lt;em&gt;technically, strictly speaking, and loosely speaking&lt;/em&gt;. These hedges are able to modify the meaning of a predicate. However, Lakoffs proposal is problematic. For example, his semantics only contains interpretations for hedged predicates using semantic information provided by selection functions. What kind of information these functions should provide for non-hedged predicates remains unspecified. This paper presents a solution for this deficit and other problems by means of a generic first-order fuzzy logic &lt;strong&gt;FL&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sub&gt;h&lt;/sub&gt; . A wide range of fuzzy logics can be used as a basis for &lt;strong&gt;FL&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sub&gt;h&lt;/sub&gt; . Next to a fully specified semantics, this solution also incorporates a proof theory for reasoning with these hedges. &lt;strong&gt;FL&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sub&gt;h&lt;/sub&gt; makes use of a special set of selection functions. These functions collect the kind of information a reasoner can retrieve from concepts in his or her memory when interpreting a (non-)hedged predicate. Despite this non-standard element, &lt;strong&gt;FL&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sub&gt;h&lt;/sub&gt; remains a conservative modification of its underlying fuzzy logic.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logische Bewijsdynamieken voor de Formele Explicatie van Wetenschappelijke Probleemoplossingsprocessen</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">April 22</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Diderik Batens&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Tim</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermeersch, Etienne</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Braeckman, Johan</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Middeleeuwse en Arabische Wijsbegeerte</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De rivier van Herakleitos: Een eigenzinnige visie op de wijsbegeere</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://lib.ugent.be/catalog/pug01:683245</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Houtekiet</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">93–101</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978 90 8924 035 4</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Waart van Gulik, Stephan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdée, Peter</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modeling sorites reasoning with adaptive fuzzy logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fuzzy Sets and Systems</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">159</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1869–1884</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;We present and discuss a new solution for reasoning with sorites series and their related paradoxes.We argue that a suitable logic for sorites series should be able to apply specific classical logic rules like modus ponens until and unless it becomes apparent that these applications generate unacceptable results. When the latter happens, the logic should be able to retract those applications of classical logic rules that are problematic. The formal core of our solution consists of several adaptive logics based on a Łukasiewicz fuzzy logic extended with the Baaz △-operator and a non-singleton interval of designated values. The natural dynamics characteristic of adaptive logics allows these logics to perform necessary retractions in an intuitive and elegant manner. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leuridan, Bert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The practical value of spurious correlations: selective versus manipulative policy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Analysis</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">298–303</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A pragmatist defense of non-relativistic explanatory pluralism in history and social science.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">History and theory</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">47</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">168–182</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Explanatory pluralism has been defended by several philosophers of history and social science, recently, for example, by Tor Egil Forland in this journal. In this article, we provide a better argument for explanatory pluralism, based on the pragmatist idea of epistemic interests. Second, we show that there are three quite different senses in which one can be an explanatory pluralist: one can be a pluralist about questions, a pluralist about answers to questions, and a pluralist about both. We defend the last position. Finally, our third aim is to argue that pluralism should not be equated with &quot;anything goes&quot;: we will argue for non-relativistic explanatory pluralism. This pluralism will be illustrated by examples from history and social science in which different forms of explanation (for example, structural, functional, and intentional explanations) are discussed, and the fruitfulness of our framework for understanding explanatory pluralism is shown.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primiero, Giuseppe</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Benthem, Johan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pacuit, Eric</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quasi-merging and Pure-arbitration on Information for the family of Adaptive Logics ADM</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic and Intelligent Interaction</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The present paper introduces two new information merging protocols for the family of adaptive logics &lt;strong&gt;ADM&lt;/strong&gt;, for which majority merging has been defined in [19]. The new adaptive operators re ect the negotiation processes of quasi-merging and pure arbitration, known from the Integrity Constraints framework introduced in [13]. The &lt;em&gt;Adaptive Variant Counting&lt;/em&gt; selection provides a result equivalent to the &lt;em&gt;GMax&lt;/em&gt; family of merging operators: it selects a collective model for a multi-set of belief bases based on the number of disagreements verified by the various models according to a leximax function. The &lt;em&gt;Adaptive Minimax Counting&lt;/em&gt; selection is a quasi-merging operator which applies a minimax function and it obtains a larger spectrum of possibilities than the previous selection: it simulates the behaviour of the &lt;em&gt;Max&lt;/em&gt; family of operators from the Integrity Con- straints framework, avoiding some of its counterintuitive results.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Waart van Gulik, Stephan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vage logica's, concepten en betekenistransformatoren.</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May 30</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent</style></pub-location><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Joke Meheus&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The ambiguity of unification in the social sciences.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2e Congrès de la Société de Philosophie des Sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In the social sciences, the dream of unity often recurs. One of these contemporary unifying projects is economics imperialism. Its goal is to increase the degree of unification by applying rational choice theory beyond its original (economic) home in other territories like political science, sociology, anthropology, history, etc. In this paper, I want to evaluate the benefits and feasibility of this project from the perspective of explanatory pluralism and demonstrate the ambiguity of unification and unity. Revisiting debates concerning rational choice theory in feminist economics and historical sociology, I will delimit the benefits and shortcomings of economics imperialism and the idea of unification, making use of a rigorous framework for explanatory pluralism – based on the erotetic model of explanation – elaborated in my earlier work (cf. Weber and Van Bouwel, 2002). A thorough analysis of these debates will result in a nuanced view on unification and unity, with on the one hand, a plea for taking the plurality of epistemic and non-epistemic interests in social scientific theories and explanation into account – with the evident implications this has for the unity of science project – but, on the other hand, an attempt to carve out a well-defined place for unification and the benefits it might bring to social science theory and explanation. This last exercise might take away the worries sometimes uttered by social scientists concerning the unificationist endeavour of economics imperialism.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Persson, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ylikoski, Petri</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Assessing the explanatory power of causal explanations.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rethinking Explanation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kluwer Academic Publishers</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dordrecht</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109–118</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-1-4020-5580-5</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primiero, Giuseppe</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Benthem, Johan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shier, Ju</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Veltman, Frank</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Belief Merging based on Adaptive Interaction</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Meeting of the Minds, proceedings of the workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-1-904987-48-2</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Causality and conservation. Elements of the new metaphysics behind the mathematization of nature in the seventeenth century</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VUB</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Monton, Bradley</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Constructive Empiricism and the Argument from Underdetermination.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas van Fraassen</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Oxford University Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11–31</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;It is argued that, contrary to prevailing opinion, Bas van Fraassen nowhere uses the argument from underdetermination in his argument for constructive empiricism. It is explained that van Fraassens use of the notion of empirical equivalence in The Scientific Image has been widely misunderstood. A reconstruction of the main arguments for constructive empiricism is offered, showing how the passages that have been taken to be part of an appeal to the argument from underdetermination should actually be interpreted.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van de Vijver, Gertrudis</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Een maat en veel gewichten. Repliek op de proefvlucht van Buekens</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">99</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">211–221</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Endorsing a pluralism between continental and analytic philosophy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Global Spiral</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">45–58</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Waart van Gulik, Stephan</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vosniadou, S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kayser, D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Athanassios, P.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the Implementation of Concept Structures in Fuzzy Logic.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the European Cognitive Science Conference 2007</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;A procedure is presented which can modify a large number of fuzzy logics in such a way that the result integrates a logically meaningful representation of the family resemblance structure of fuzzy concepts. The most important aspect of this modification is the implementation of so-called concept matrices. The interpretation and construction of these new formal objects is based upon Fintan Costellos Diagnostic Evidence Model (2000), a contemporary cognitive scientific model of concept structure and concept combination. As a result, it becomes possible to formalize, explain and simulate new logical aspects of cognitive fuzziness such as meaning transformations by means of non-scalar hedges, and interpretational and inferential operations over non-intersective concept combinations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">François, Karen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Learning concepts through the history of mathematics: the case of symbolic algebra.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical dimensions in mathematics education</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">83–103</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-0-387-71571-1</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Langhe, Rogier</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Loobuyck, Patrick</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanheeswijck, G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Herck, W.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Naar een Pluralistisch Model van Onderzoeksfinanciering in de Humane Wetenschappen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Welke Universiteit Willen We (Niet)?</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://logica.ugent.be/rogier/onderzoeksfinanciering.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Academia Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">205–216</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789038211879</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Het nieuwe Financieringsmodel voor het Hoger Onderwijs wordt vaak bekritiseerd vanuit argumentendie teruggaan op de eigenheid van de humane wetenschappen. Dit artikel poogt deze eigenheid preciezer teomschrijven en brengt de gevolgen voor de relatie tussen onderzoek en het tijdschriftenlandschap in kaart. Opbasis daarvan wordt de doelmatigheid betwist van het huidige voorstel, dat de efficiëntie van onderzoek wilverhogen door publicaties te wegen op basis van de tijdschriften waarin ze worden gepubliceerd. Dit betekentgeenszins dat een efficiëntere humane wetenschap onmogelijk is, alleen moet dat gebeuren op een manierwaarop haar pluralistische natuur niet wordt miskend. Hoe een dergelijk beleid er kan uitzien wordt daaromuitgewerkt in een aanzet naar een pluralististisch model van onderzoeksfinanciering in de humanewetenschappen.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Langhe, Rogier</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A pragmatist approach to the plurality of explanations in international relations theory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6th Pan-European conference on international relations, Proceedings</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://turin.sgir.eu/uploads/De%20Langhe-SGIR%20Rogier%20De%20Langhe%20-%20Erik%20Weber%20-%20Jeroen%20Van%20Bouwel.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Standing Group of International Relations of the ECPR</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;One of the main problems scientists –physicists and political scientists alike- face, is the problem of the plurality of explanations. Graham Allison’s classic study of the Cuban Missile Crisis is an excellent example of problem-focused research and an intriguing instance of this problem in International Relations Theory. He leaves us with three versions of the events, which raised more questions than Allison could apparently answer: instructions for concerted action or discrimination between his ‘conceptual models’ remain very sketchy. This paper aims to show that replacing Allison’s use of Hempel’s (then fashionable but now rather outdated) covering-law model of explanation with a pragmatist account of explanation offers a way to break the deadlock Allison was faced with. In particular, we will show that a specification of the epistemic interests of the explainer enables us to narrow down the number of available explanations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The relevance of a relevantly assertable disjunction for material implication</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Philosophical Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">36</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">339–366</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper Grice's requirements for assertability are imposed on the disjunction of Classical Logic. Defining material implication in terms of negation and disjunction supplemented by assertability conditions, results in the disappearance of the most important paradoxes of material implication. The resulting consequence relation displays a very strong resemblance to Schurz's conclusion-relevant consequence relation&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An Archaeology of Galileo's Science</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May 15</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Erik Weber&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Voss, Stephen</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Can intentional and functional explanations of actions coexist?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Antropology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Society of Turkey</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">135–146</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9757748404</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Do functional explanations eclipse the intentionality of human actions? Put differently, do intentional and functional explanations of actions conflict with each other? In this paper, I want to argue that both sorts of explanation, if conceived in a proper way, are compatible instruments. First, I will make a distinction between three kinds of explanatory pluralism of actions: a pluralism of theories of actions, a pluralism of sorts of explanations of actions, and a pluralism of methods for the explanation of actions. Intentional and functional explanations are sorts, not theories or methods, of explanation. Next, I will briefly distinguish intentional and functional explanations: intentional explanations refer to the beliefs and desires of an agent, and functional explanations refer to the function of a motive of an action (etiological functions), or to the function of a result of an action (system functions). Finally, I discuss possible conflicts between both sorts of explanation. In cases where real conflicts between functional and intentional explanations do arise, this is due to the lack of sufficient information or the misinterpretation of information of one or both explanations. Hence, such conflicts are not conflicts between sorts of explanations&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De idee van emergentie in de sociologie: perspectieven en problemen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tijdschrijft voor sociologie</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">27</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">337–350</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The division of labour in the social sciences versus the politics of metaphysics. Questioning Critical Realism's interdisciplinarity</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Graduate Journal of Social Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32–39</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Some scholars claim that Critical Realism promises well for the unification of the social sciences, e.g., Unifying social science: A critical realist approach in this volume. I will first show briefly how Critical Realism might unify social science. Secondly, I focus on the relation between the ontology and methodology of Critical Realism, and unveil the politics of metaphysics. Subsequently, it is argued that the division of labour between social scientific disciplines should not be metaphysics-driven, but rather question-driven. In conclusion, I will therefore defend a question-driven pluralism as a guide for interdisciplinarity.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gravitating towards stability: Guidobaldo's Aristotelian-Archimedean synthesis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">History of science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/1854/10929</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">146</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">44</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">373–407</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arlsdale, John Z.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The idea of social mechanisms in social scientific explanations.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Progress in Social Psychology Research</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Advances in social psychology research</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nova Science</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">83–95</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1594546584</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Malinowski, Jacek</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pietruszczak, Andrzej</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A World of Experiences, an Adequate Language, and Self-Reference Revised</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Essays in Logic and Ontology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rodopi</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">91</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">243–256</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The paper presents a new, intuitive formal language, L E , that fits in with a world view in which experiences are central entities. It is shown how classical logic and an &quot;objective making&quot; adaptive logic can be applied to formulas of L E . The latter logic sheds an interesting light on the creation of theories about &quot;the objective world&quot;. The paper also contains a small comment on sentences that are not translatable in L E . In the last section, I revise self-referring sentences by means of their translations in L E.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coping with inconsistencies: Examples from the social sciences</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic and logical philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">89–101</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper we present two case studies on inconsistencies in the social sciences. The first is devoted to sociologist George Caspar Homans and his exchange theory. We argue that his account of how he arrived at his theory is highly misleading, because it ignores the inconsistencies he had to cope with. In the second case study we analyse how John Maynard Keynes coped with the inconsistency between classical economic theory and real economic conditions in developing his path-breaking theory.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Disjunctie. Adaptief-Logische Formalisering van een aantal Griceaanse Implicaturen</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September 22</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Diderik Batens&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Horsten, Leon</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the Exclusivity Implicature of `Or' or on the Meaning of Eating Strawberries</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive Logics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">exclusivity implicature</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11225-005-2767-8</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">81</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19-24</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper is a contribution to the program of constructing formal representations of pragmatic aspects of human reasoning. We propose a formalization within the framework of Adaptive Logics of the exclusivity implicature governing the connective or.Keywords: exclusivity implicature, Adaptive Logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Forms of causal explanation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Foundations of science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">437–454</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Functions of Intentional Explanations of Actions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Behavior and Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–16</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper deals with the &quot;functions of intentional explanations&quot; of actions (IEAs), i.e., explanations that refer to intentional states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of the agent. IEAs can have different formats. We consider these different formats to be instruments that enable the explainer to capture different kinds of information. We pick out two specific formats, i.e. &quot;contrastive&quot; and &quot;descriptive&quot;, which will enable us to discuss the functions of IEAs. In many cases the explanation is contrastive, i.e. it makes use of one or more contrasts between real intentional states and ideal intentional states (ideal from the point of view of the explainer). In many other cases IEAs have a descriptive (covering-law) format. The aim of this paper is to analyze the functions the two kinds of explanations can have. We will show that certain functions are better served by one rather than the other format. This leads to pluralism with respect to formats. We argue that both formats are necessary and that their functions are complementary.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeft er iemand een wetenschapsbeleid gezien? Over wetenschap, democratie en de onderzoeksagenda</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samenleving en politiek</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.stichtinggerritkreveld.be/ECMS\_CLIENT/configuration/pages/artikel.php?aid=307</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12–18</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The paradox of conceptual novelty and Galileo's use of experiments</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/1854/10928</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">72</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">864–875</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Starting with a discussion of what I call Koyrés paradox of conceptual novelty, I introduce the ideas of Damerow et al. on the establishment of classical mechanics in Galileos work. I then argue that although their view on the nature of Galileos conceptual innovation is convincing, it misses an essential element: Galileos use of the experiments described in the first day of the Two New Sciences. I describe these experiments and analyze their function. Central to my analysis is the idea that Galileos pendulum experiments serve to secure the reference of his theoretical models in actually occurring cases of free fall. In this way, Galileos experiments constitute an essential part of the meaning of the new concepts of classical mechanics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wisniewski, Andzrej</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leszczynska, Dorota</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Socratic proofs and paraconsistency: a case study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2-3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">431–466</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper develops a new proof method for two propositional paraconsistent logics: the propositional part of Batens' weak paraconsistent logic CLuN and Schütte's maximally paraconsistent logic Fv. Proofs are de.ned as certain sequences of questions. The method is grounded in Inferential Erotetic Logic.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Towards a framework for pluralisms in economics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Post-Autistic Economics Review</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">30</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24–27</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weighing Falling Bodies. Galileo's Thought Experiment in the Development of his Dynamical Thinking.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Unpublished</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boekbespreking: &quot;Jan Albert van Laar. The Dialectic of Ambiguity. A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation&quot;.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">248–251</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gillies, D.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassirer's critical idealism: a comment on Thomas Mormann.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laws and Models in Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">King's College Publications</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">London</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">161–171</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0954300661</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The consequences of scientific pluralism for science policy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of V Jornadas Latinoamericanas de estudios sociales de la ciencia y de la tecnología</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanatory pluralism in economics: Against the mainstream?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Explorations</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">299–315</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Recent pleas for more heterodoxy in explaining economic action have been defending a pluralism for economics. In this article, I analyse these defences by scrutinizing the pluralistic qualities in the work of one of the major voices of heterodoxy, Tony Lawson. This scrutiny will focus on Lawson's alternatives concerning ontology and explanation to &lt;strong&gt;mainstream&lt;/strong&gt; economics. Subsequently, I will raise some doubts about Lawson's pluralism, and identify questions that will have to be addressed by heterodox economists in order to maintain the claim of pluralism.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imperialistische tendensen in de economiebeoefening en politieke wetenschappen. Over heterodoxie en pluralisme in de sociale wetenschappen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ethiek &amp; maatschappij</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32–45</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cuypers, Stefaan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Introduction: beyond Empiricism in the Social Explanation of Action</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Explorations</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">197–201</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logica en het Waardevolle in de Wereld. De Rol van Adaptieve Logica's bij de Constructie van Theorieën</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May 12</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Diderik Batens&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Models of intentional explanation.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophical Explorations</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">233–247</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The controversy about intentional explanation of action concerns how these explanations work. What kind of model allows us to capture the dependency or relevance relation between the explanans, i.e. the beliefs and desires of the agent, and the explanandum, i.e. the action? In this paper, I argue that the causal mechanical model can do the job. Causal mechanical intentional explanations consist in a reference to the mechanisms of practical reasoning of the agent that motivated the agent to act, i.e. to a causally relevant set of beliefs and desires. Moreover, the causal mechanical model can provide in efficient and unproblematic applications, unlike action explanations using ceteris paribus laws or counterfactuals. The drawback of the latter models of explanation is their modal requirement: the explanans must mention or implies sufficient and/or necessary conditions for the explanandum. Such a requirement is too strong when it comes to intentional explanation of action.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Naar een pluralisme van verklaringen in mens- en natuurwetenschappen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ethiek &amp; Maatschappij</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">60-69</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rahman, Shahid</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Symons, John</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gabbay, Dov M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Need for Adaptive Logics in Epistemology</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kluwer</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dordrecht</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">459–485</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;After it is argued that philosophers of science have lost their interest in logic because they applied the wrong type of logics, examples are given of the forms of dynamic reasoning that are central for philosophy of science and epistemology. Adaptive logics are presented as a means to understand and explicate those forms of reasoning. All members of a specific (large) set of adaptive logics are proved to have a number of properties that warrant their formal decency and their suitability with respect to understanding and explicating dynamic forms of reasoning. Most of the properties extend to other adaptive logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Questioning structurism as a new standard for social scientific explanations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Graduate Journal of Social Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">204–226</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;As the literature on Critical Realism in the social sciences is growing, it is about time to analyse whether a new, acceptable standard for social scientific explanations is being introduced. In order to do so, I will discuss the work of Christopher Lloyd, who analysed contributions of social scientists that rely on (what he called) a structurist ontology and a structurist methodology, and advocated a third option in the methodological debate between individualism and holism. I will suggest modifications to three points of Lloyd's analysis, without abandoning Lloyd's intuitions completely. Firstly, the intuitions of the structurist ontology can be made explicit in a different way, without loosing the individual-society dualism. Secondly, opting for a structurist ontology does not necessarily imply opting for a structurist methodology. Ontology and methodology are related, but not as strongly as Lloyd supposes. Thirdly, the idea of a complete explanation, present in the structurist methodology, confuses causation and explanation while denying the pragmatics of explanation. A broader spectrum of explanatory forms can be defended. Criticizing Lloyd on these three points will lead me to the defence of an explanatory pluralism, which I relate to a minimal ontology. The intention of this reconceptualisation of structurism (and related Critical Realist applications) is to broaden possible perspectives on the explanatory praxis of the social scientist, and to question the reunification of the social sciences. It will also stipulate which form of interdisciplinarity is preferable for the social sciences.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Clercq, Kristof</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sieving Out Relevant and Efficient Questions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">185–188</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">47</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">189–216</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Wisniewksis erotetic logic provides us with two slightly different semantic explications of the intuitive concept of a question arises from a set of declarative premises. Unfortunately, Wisniewskis erotetic concepts suffer from the drawback that they allow for the raising of irrelevant and inefficient questions. The aim of this paper is to show that raising such questions can be avoided by changing the underlying logic. Several closely related logical approaches which enable us to eliminate irrelevant and inefficient questions, are presented.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Change in individuals without a name. Contextual indicators &amp; the free change-adaptive logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic and Logical Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2003.011</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">213–230</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Proof theory and semantics of an adaptive logic that deals adequately with change in individuals with or without a name are presented. New logical constants are introduced, viz. indicators. Within a given context they function as names, predicates and quantifiers at the same time. The thus extended language (of classical logic) has a big expressive power and solvespartly  the (classical) non-logical presuppositions with respect to the existence of individuals. Nevertheless, from a purely logical point of view, the here pre - sented logic requires nothing but a very intuitive selection of classical models of the premises, viz. the minimally abnormal ones.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Changing one's position in discussions - Some adaptive approaches</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic and Logical Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11/12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">277–297</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper contains different approaches to solve the problem how to construct the ultimate position out of ones interventions in a discussion after possibly one or more position changes. In all approaches it is the aim to come as close as possible to human reasoning. Therefore all logics are adaptive logics. The first logic is an extension of an adaptive translation into S5 of the Rescher-Manor mechanisms. The second one is a dynamic proof theory based on a technique using indices. In the end a satisfactory solution is given by a dynamic proof theory expressing the idea of prioritized compatibility, i.e. compatibility step by step&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Een Pluralisme van Verklaringen van Acties</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">March 14</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Erik Weber&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Clercq, Kristof</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Delrieux, Claudio</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Legris, Javier</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Procedure for Generating (Conditional) Answers in a Goal-Directed Way</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Computer modeling of scientific reasoning</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Universidad Nacional Del Sur. EDIUNS</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bahia Blanca, Argentinia</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57–63</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9879281896</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Two evolutionary games : collective action and prisoner's dilema / Jakson Alves de Aquino – A formal approach to problem solving / Diderik Batens – Application of mathematics and underdetermination / Ota\unmatched{0301}vio Bueno – A framework for combining defeasible argumentation with labeled deduction / Carlos Iva\unmatched{0301}n Chesn\unmatched{0303}evar and Guillermo Ricardo Simari – A procedure for generating (conditional) answers in a goal-directed way / Kristof De Clerq and Rob Vanderbeken – Abductive inference in defeasible reasoning : a model for research programmes / Claudio Delrieux – Kepler's near discovery of the sine law : a quantitative computational model / Albrecht Heeffer – Default models of rationality / Silvia Lerner – Most inferences are defeasible / Jose\unmatched{0301} Carlos Loureiro Ralha and Ce\unmatched{0301}lia Ghedini Rahla – Reasoning through doing : epistemic mediators in scientific reasoning / Lorenzo Magnani – Do we need paraconsistency in commonsense reasoning? / Joke Meheus – Descartes, a methodical elimination of paradoxes for (de)-ontology building / Jean Sallantin ... [et al.] – Measuring coherence using LP-models / Carlos A. Oller – What are multi-agent systems trying to accomplish? Towards pragmatic game-theoretical agenda / Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen – Direct dynamic proofs for compatibility / Dagmar Provijn – Semantic computations of truth, based on associations already learned / Patrick Suppes and Jean-Yves Be\unmatched{0301}ziau – On the sense of eating strawberries, or, On the exclusivity implcature fo 'or' / Liza Verhoeven and Leon Horsten – A note on epistemology and logical afrificial intelligence / Gregory R. Wheeler and Lui\unmatched{0301}s Moniz Pereira.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proof Theories for Some Prioritized Consequence Relations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">183–184</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">46</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">325–344</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Handling a possibly inconsistent prioritized belief base can be done in terms of consistent subsets. Humans do not compute consistent subsets, they just start reasoning and when confronted with incon- sistencies in the course of their reasoning, they may adjust their interpretation of the information. In logics this behaviour corresponds to the mechanisms of dynamic proof theories. The aim of this paper is to transform known consequence relations for inconsistent prioritized belief bases in terms of consistent subsets, into dynamic proof theories that are a more faithful representation of human reasoning processes.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The roles of one thought experiment in interpreting quantum mechanics: Werner Heisenberg meets Thomas Kuhn</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">72</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">79–103</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Provijn, Dagmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Some Adaptive Logics for Diagnosis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic and Logical Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11/12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39–65</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;A logic of diagnosis proceeds in terms of a set of premises and one or more (prioritized) sets of expectancies. In this paper we generalize the logics of diagnosis from \cite{EDa:diag} and present some alternatives. The former operate on the premises and expectancies themselves, the latter on their consequences.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerkhove, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vagueness-Adaptive Logic: A Pragmatical Approach to Sorites Paradoxes</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Studia Logica</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">adaptive logic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">construction of scientific theories</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">paraconsistent logic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">philosophical logic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">philosophy of language</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sorites paradox</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">vagueness</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B%3ASTUD.0000009567.21578.0a</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">75</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">383-411</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper defends a pragmatical approach to vagueness. The vagueness-adaptive logic VAL is a good reconstruction of and an excellent, instrument for human reasoning processes in which vague predicates are involved. Apart from its proof-theory and semantics, a Sorites-treating model based on it is presented, disarming the paradox. The paper opens perspectives with respect to the construction of theories by means of vague predicates.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verklaringspluralisme in de sociale wetenschappen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Belgisch tijdschrift voor nieuwste geschiedenis  Revue belge dhistoire</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">303–311</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verklaringspluralisme in de Sociale Wetenschappen. Een Wetenschapsfilosofische Verdediging met Toepassingen in de Geschiedbeoefening, de Theorie van Internationale Relaties en de Economische Wetenschappen</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">January 31</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phd</style></work-type><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Erik Weber&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">When unveiling the epistemic fallacy ends with committing the ontological fallacy. On the contribution of critical realism to the social scientific explanatory practice</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">71</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">81–98</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Provijn, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ampliative Adaptive Logics and the Foundation of Logic-Based Approaches to Abduction</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logical and Computational Aspects of Model-Based Reasoning</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kluwer Academic</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dordrecht</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39–71</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, we propose a reconstruction of logic-based approaches to abductive reasoning in terms of ampliative adaptive logics. The advantages of this reconstruction are important: the resulting logics have a proper theory (that leads to justified conclusions even for undecidable fragments), they nicely integrate deductive and abductive steps, and they are much closer to natural reasoning than the existing systems.&lt;br /&gt; We present two new adaptive logics for abduction, &lt;strong&gt;CP1&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;CP2&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;CP1&lt;/strong&gt; enables one to generate explanations for novel facts from a consistent theory. &lt;strong&gt;CP2&lt;/strong&gt; moreover enables one to abduce explanatory hypotheses for novel facts and for anomalous facts from a possibly inconsistent theory. We illustrate both logics with some examples from the history of the sciences (the discovery of Uranus and of Neptune), and present some alternatives to &lt;strong&gt;CP1&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;CP2&lt;/strong&gt; that are better suited for non-creative forms of abductive reasoning and for practical reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermeir, Timothy</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Direct Dynamic Proofs For the Rescher–Manor Consequence Relations: The Flat Case</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63–84</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;It was shown in \cite{D:unific} that the flat Rescher–Manor consequence relations–-the Free, Strong, Argued, C-Based, and Weak consequence relation–-are all characterized by special applications of inconsistency-adaptive logics defined from the paraconsistent logic &lt;strong&gt;CLuN&lt;/strong&gt;. As as result, these consequence relations are provided with a dynamic proof theory. In the present paper we show that the detour via an inconsistency-adaptive logic is not necessary. We present a &lt;em&gt;direct&lt;/em&gt; dynamic proof theory, formulated in the language of Classical Logic, and prove its adequacy.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dispositional Explanations of Behavior.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Behavior and Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">30</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43–59</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;If dispositions are conceived as properties of systems that refer to possiblecausal relations, dispositions can be used in singular causal explanations. By means of these dispositional explanations, we can explain behavior B of a system &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; by (i) referring toa situation of type S that triggered B, given that &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; has a disposition D to do B in S, or (ii) byreferring to a disposition D of &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; to do B in S, given that &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; is in a situation of type S.Dispositional explanations are adequate and indispensable explanations: they can explain behavior B without explicitly referring to the underlying causal basis in &lt;em&gt;x&lt;/em&gt; that constitutes adisposition to do B. Radical Behaviorist explanations are a sort of dispositionalexplanations, but the dispositional model is not restricted to these explanations. Thedispositional model is compatible with, or can be applied to, several research programs&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanatory Proofs in Mathematics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">179–180</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">45</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">299–307</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermeir, Timothy</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">From Wffs to Clauses: Transforming Wffs in Clauses Without Loss of Meaning</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper is the rst step into the research of inconsistency-adaptive logic programming. It will be shown here that a mapping can be dened for well formed formulas to logic programming clauses in a paraconsistent environment, and without loss of information. Furthermore, this mapping is a purely mechanical procedure that can be implemented with ease on a computer.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Krach, Helghe</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanpaemel, Geert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marage, Pierre</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Inconsistencies in Scientific Discovery. Clausius's Remarkable Derivation of Carnot's Theorem</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">History of Modern Physics. Acta of the XXth International Congress of History of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brepols</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Turnhout (Belgium)</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">143–154</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Inconsistencies in the history of mathematics: the case of infinitesimals.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Inconsistency in Science</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Origins</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0085-6_3</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kluwer Academic</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dordrecht</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43–57</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-4020-0630-6</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I will not confine myself exclusively to historical considerations. Both philosophical and technical matters will be raised, all with the purpose of trying to understand (better) what Newton, Leibniz and the many precursors (might have) meant when they talked about infinitesimals. The technical part will consist of an analysis why apparently infinitesimals have resisted so well to be formally expressed. The philosophical part, actually the most important part of this paper, concerns a discussion that has been going on for some decennia now. After the Kuhnian revolution in philosophy of science, notwithstanding Kuhns own suggestion that mathematics is something quite special, the question was nevertheless asked how mathematics develops. Are there revolutions in mathematics? If so, what do we have to think of? If not, why do they not occur? Is mathematics the so often claimed totally free creation of the human spirit? As usual, there is a continuum of positions, but let me sketch briefly the two extremes: the completists (as I call them) on the one hand, and the contingents (as I call them as well) on the other hand.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermeir, Timothy</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carnielli, Walter A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coniglio, Marcelo E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Loffredo D'Ottaviano, Itala M.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An Inconsistency-Adaptive Proof Procedure for Logic Programming</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paraconsistency. The Logical Way to the Inconsistent</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marcel Dekker</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">New York</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">323-340</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;It is the goal of this paper to de ne a paraconsistent proof procedure that has the best of two mechanisms, in casu logic programming and inconsistency-adaptive logics. From logic programming we will maintain the ease of computing, and from adaptive logics their paraconsistency, dynamics and non-monotonicity. This will be done by combining the notion of competitor from logic programming together with the conditionallity that is common in all adaptive proofs.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Living Apart Together Relationship between Causation and Explanation. A comment on Jean Lachappelle.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy of the Social Sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">560-569</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carnielli, Walter A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coniglio, Marcelo E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Loffredo D'Ottaviano, Itala M.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ontological causes of inconsistency and a change-adaptive, logical solution</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paraconsistency. The Logical Way to the Inconsistent</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marcel Dekker</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">228</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">151–166</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0824708059</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper reveals an implicit ontological assumption that is presupposed in common thought. This assumption results in the fact that people usually do not make any distinction between 'the object a' and 'the object a at a given moment'. This laziness causes many inconsistencies. Several attempts to solve these inconsistencies are studied, and the most natural one is elaborated, namely the one obtained by applying Classical Logic to an ontological correct domain. This solution has a drawback with respect to communication, which is solved by the change-adaptive logic CAL2. This non-monotonic, paraconsistent logic, belongs to the family of ambiguity-adaptive logics. It has the special characteristic that it solves inconsistencies by the introduction of more precise names for objects, more exactly names that refer to objects at a moment. The dynamics of the logic captures the change in objects. CAL2 has a nice proof theory, and an intuitive semantics. Interesting results and applications are commented upon, for instance those making use of the notion 'periods of invariance'. Of course, the philosophical background is discussed.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dekker, Hendrik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Villadsen, Jorgen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Waragai, Toshiharu</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On a Partial Decision Method for Dynamic Proofs</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PCL 2002. Paraconsistent Computational Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.LO/0207090</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Roskilde University</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">95</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">91–108</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper concerns a goal directed proof procedure for the propositional fragment of the adaptive logic ACLuN1. At the propositional level, it forms an algorithm for final derivability. If extended to the predicative level, it provides a criterion for final derivability. This is essential in view of the absence of a positive test. The procedure may be generalized to all flat adaptive logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Also available as cs.LO/0207090 at \texttt{http://arxiv.org/archive/cs/intro.html}&lt;/p&gt;</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Tim</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J. Leilich, P. Reynaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Veldeman, J.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qualia, spectruminversie en filosofische zombies.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Het bewustzijn in de fysische wereld: Filosofische essays over materialisme en fenomenaal bewustzijn</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peeters</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leuven</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">171-194</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Remote Causes, Bad Explanations?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">437-449</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verdonck, Barbara</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Devos, Rob</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Braeckman, Antoon</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Subject ingebed? Over het methodologisch individualisme in de sociale wetenschappen.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De terugkeer van het subject? Recente Ontwikkelingen binnen de filosofie</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Universitaire Pers</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">169–179</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">90-5867-237-9</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Symposium on Explanation and Social Ontology 3: Can We Dispense with Structural Explanations of Social Facts?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Economics and Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">259–275</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Some social scientists and philosophers (e.g., James Coleman and Jon Elster) claim that all social facts are best explained by means of a micro-explanation. They defend a micro-reductionism in the social sciences: to explain is to provide a mechanism on the individual level. The first aim of this paper is to challenge this view and defend the view that it has to be substituted for an explanatory pluralism with two components: (1) structural explanations of P-, O- and T-contrasts between social facts are more efficient than the competing micro-explanations; and (2) whether a plain social fact (as opposed to a contrast) is best explained in a micro-explanation or a structural explanation depends on the explanatory interest. The second aim of the paper is to show how this explanatory pluralism is compatible with ontological individualism. This paper is motivated by our conviction that explanatory pluralism as defended by Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit is on the right track, but must be further elaborated. We want to supplement their contribution, by (1) introducing the difference between explanations of facts and explanations of contrasts; (2) giving examples from the social sciences, instead of mainly from the natural sciences or common sense knowledge; and (3) emphasizing the pragmatic relevance of explanations on different levels social, psychological, biological, etc.  which is insufficiently done by Jackson and Pettit.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Unification and explanation - A comment on Halonen and Hintikka, and Schurz.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Synthese</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">131</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">145–154</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article we criticize two recent articles that examine the relation between explanation and unification. Halonen and Hintikka (1999), on the one hand, claim that no unification is explanation. Schurz (1999), on the other hand, claims that all explanation is unification. We give counterexamples to both claims. We propose a pluralistic approach to the problem: explanation sometimes consists in unification, but in other cases different kinds of explanation (e.g., causal explanation) are required; and none of these kinds is more fundamental.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptive Logic and Covering Law Explanations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">173-175</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">44</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">237–254</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In his theory of explanation Hempel introduced two basic types of covering law explanations for particular events: deductive-nomological and inductive-statistical. In this article we argue that there is more than one reason why adaptive logics provide the right tools for analyzing the argument patterns involved in these covering law explanations. To this end we claim that in the case of inconsistent knowledge systems, neither classical logic, nor a paraconsistent logic suffice to capture the right class of permissible arguments that can make up a deductive-nomological explanation, whereas an adaptive logic gives just the right results. The arguments behind inductive-statistical explanations face the well-known problem of inductive ambiguities, which Hempel tried to solve by his &lt;em&gt;requirement of maximal specifity.&lt;/em&gt; We show how this requirement can be nicely incorporated in a logic for these arguments, again using an adaptive logic (which we describe in some detail).&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhoeven, Liza</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">All premises are equal, but some are more equal than others.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">173-175</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">44</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">165–188</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper proposes two adaptive approaches to inconsistent prioritized belief bases. Both approaches rely on a selection mechanism, that is not applied to the premises as they stand, but to the consequence sets of the belief levels. One is based on classical compatibility, the other on the modal logic T of Feys. For both approaches the two main strategies of inconsistency adaptive logics are formulated: the reliability strategy and the minimal abnormality strategy. All four systems are compared and found useful.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanderbeeken, Robrecht</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blasius, Jörg</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hox, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">de Leeuw, E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schmidt, P.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Pragmatic Approach to the Explanation of Actions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social Science Methodology in the New Millenium</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology</style></tertiary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leske &amp; Budrich</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Keulen</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Preferences as inconsistency-resolvers: an Inconsistency-adaptive Tool</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic and Logical Philosophy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">47–63</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The role of ambiguities in the construction of collective theories.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">173-175</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">44</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">189–214</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The paper presents a formal model for theory development, based on a very intuitive ambiguity-adaptive logic. Apart from its simplicity, the model has some interesting features. (i) It allows for the construction of theories that cannot rely on observational data. (ii) It allows to construct a theory starting from zero, and using a small set of predicates. (iii) The model establishes that there is no real difference between the construction of scientific theories and the development of everyday knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Krause, Décio</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">French, Steven</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Doria, Francisco A.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alternative mathematics: the vague way.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Festschrift in honor of Newton C.A. da Costa on the occasion of his seventieth birthday</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kluwer Academic</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">125</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19–31</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">N/A</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hallyn, Fernand</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Analogy and metaphor as essential tools for the working mathematician</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metaphor and Analogy in the Sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">105–123</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;It may perhaps sound strange if not bizarre to suggest that metaphors and analogies could and should play a role in the practice of mathematics, let alone to claim that they are essential in present-day mathematics. Yet, that will be precisely the claim I will defend in this paper. I do insist that present-day mathematics is the domain of investigation I have in mind. From a historical perspective, and as an example, no one seems to doubt that mathematics one way or another must have arisen out of a specific set of practices, usually referred to as counting and measuring, and that mathematical concepts are metaphorically related to these practices. That view of the matter, however, does not necessarily say anything about the situation today and, indeed, in most cases it does not.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortensen, Chris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Priest, Graham</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An Extremely Rich Paraconsistent Logic and the Adaptive Logic Based on It</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Research Studies Press</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baldock, UK</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">189–201</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortensen, Chris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Priest, Graham</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Research Studies Press</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baldock, UK</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HL2, an inconsistency-adaptive and inconsistency-resolving logic for general statements that might have exceptions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3-4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">317–338</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The present paper offers a new approach to non-monotonic logics and their reconstruction in terms of inconsistency-adaptive logics. By applying a special technique, universally quantified formulas are assigned instances that, given the paraconsistent framework, do not cause triviality even if they conflict with knowledge deriving from other sources. From the special instances, the usual instances may be derived conditionally, viz. provided they are not contradicted by statements derived with a higher preference ranking.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human(istisch)e wiskunde of de mogelijkheid van een alternatieve wiskunde.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De toekomst van het heden : zijn we op weg naar een menselijker samenleving?</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanistisch Vrijzinnige Dienst</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127–140</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9074174051</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vermeir, Timothy</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Inconsistency-adaptive Arithmetic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167-168</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">221-241</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this article, it is shown that inconsistent arithmetic, as proposed by Jean Paul Van Bendegem and Graham Priest, does not have all the properties they claim the system has. The search for a system of inconsistent arithmetic that does have the intended properties, will lead us through different axiomatizations and different logics, the final result being inconsistency-adaptive arithmetic.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortensen, Chris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Priest, Graham</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Survey of Inconsistency-Adaptive Logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Research Studies Press</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baldock, UK</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49–73</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper offers a systematic review of some central philosophical and technical results on adaptive logics. Quite a few of the results are still in print or forthcoming.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The creative growth of mathematics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1999</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">119–152</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Minimizing Ambiguity and Paraconsistency.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1999</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">165-166</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39–160</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Ambiguity-adaptive logics offer a natural and rich formal solution to (possibly) inconsistent theories. Three views on ambiguities result in three different, intuitively correct ambiguity-adaptive logics with interesting applications. We present their semantics and proof theory, and illustrate that ambiguity-adaptive logics form an excellent alternative to paraconsistent logics that focus on the characteristics of the logical constants.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Walraves, Else</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stuy, Johan</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Oorlog en vrede in wetenschapsland</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Denken als Openheid. Liber Amicorum Hubert Dethier</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1999</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VUB</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">153-160</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerckhove, Christian</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radicaal Atheïsme</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wat met God?</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1999</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanistisch Vrijzinnige Dienst</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Antwerpen</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">129–162</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schoonheid in de wiskunde: Birkhoff Revisited</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tijdschrift voor Filosofie</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1998</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">60</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">106–130</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Everyone is familiar with the measure of beauty that has been proposed by Birkhoff, the famous formula M = O/C. Although I show that the formula in its original form cannot be maintained, I present a reinterpretation that adapts the formula for measuring the beauty of mathematical proofs. However, this type of measure is not the only aesthetic element in mathematics. There exists a 'romantic' side as well, to use the term introduced by François Le Lionnais. Thus, a more complex proposal of mathematical beauty is presented. Finally and as a consequence, I argue against the dichotomy that associates science, including mathematics, with the beauty of simplicity and that associates the arts with the beauty of complexity. As an example, the work of Oulipo, Raymond Queneau in particular, is briefly presented.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anapolitanos, Dionysios</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baltas, Aristides</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tsinorema, Stavroula</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">What, if anything, is an experiment in mathematics?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy and the Many Faces of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1998</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rowman &amp; Littlefield</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">172–182</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zeker lezen: logica.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wijsgerig Perspectief op Maatschappij en Wetenschap</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1998</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68-69</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ambiguity-adaptive logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1997</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">159</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">261–280</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerckhove, Christian</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grondslagen van het vrijzinnig humanisme. Een kennistheoretisch pleidooi</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grondslagen Vrijzinnig Humanisme</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1997</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanistisch Vrijzinnige Dienst</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Antwerpen</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">75–104</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">L.E.J. Brouwer.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kritisch Denkerslexicon</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1997</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-14</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandormael, Jan</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Twee grote verhalen over wetenschap (voor allen en voor niemand).</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ik &amp; het verhaal</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1997</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Uitgaven Woord en Argument</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hasselt</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">107-130</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Kerckhove, Christian</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vrijzinnig (?) humanisme (?) in een moderne (?) wereld.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grondslagen Vrijzinnig Humanisme</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1997</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanistisch Vrijzinnige Dienst</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Antwerpen</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">149-169</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wetenschap en religie: zo verzoenbaar als men maar wil.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mores</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1997</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">381-388</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Benthem, Johan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Eemeren, F. H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grootendorst, R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Veltman, Frank</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Functioning and teachings of adaptive logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic and Argumentation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">North-Holland</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">241–254</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper concerns some formal systems, viz. adaptive logics, that display a specific flexibility in the meanings of logical terms. Both the flexibility that occurs within the systems and the question as to how we may arrive at such systems is discussed. Both, it is argued, are relevant for bridging the gap between logic and argumentation.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Douven, Igor</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Horsten, Leon</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mathematical Experiments and Mathematical Pictures</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Realism in the Sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Universitaire Pers</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leuven</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">203–216</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ook het oneindige is ons werk</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leo Apostel. Tien filosofen getuigen</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hadewijch</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Antwerpen/Baarn</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">119–134</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The strange case of the missing body of mathematics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Semiotica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3-4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">112</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">403–413</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;La notion d'infini est analysée en comparant les mathématiques et la théologie car les mathématiciens ont pendant longtemps perçu une relation entre la notion infinie mathématique et la notion d'infinité de Dieu&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Strict finitism as a viable alternative in the foundations of mathematics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">145</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23–40</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In defence of discrete space and time</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1995</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">150-151-152</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127-150</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper several arguments are discussed and evaluated concerning the possibility of discrete space and time.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Eemeren, F. H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grootendorst, R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blair, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Willart, C.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific Arguments and Scientific Prediction.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Special Fields and Cases. Proceedings on the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1995</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SicSat</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IV</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">377-387</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kornelis, Gustaaf</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adaptieve logica’s: een aanzet om elkaar te begrijpen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Iedereen die niet denkt zoals ik, volge mij. Acta 16de Nederlands-Vlaamse Filosofiedag</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1994</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VUB-Pers</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13–19</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verbeure, Frans</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Apostel, Leo</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Determinisme en indeterminisme</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verwijdering of ontmoeting?</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1994</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pelckmans</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">183–202</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kornelis, Gustaaf</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elk wetenschapper zijn onderzoeksprogramma?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Iedereen die niet denkt zoals ik, volge mij. Acta 16de Nederlands-Vlaamse Filosofiedag</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1994</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VUB-Pers</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">61–67</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Meirvenne, Joachim</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Indexed Inconsistency-Adaptive Logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1994</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">145</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">41-55</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cornelis, Gustaaf C</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Waarom Wesley Salmons causaal-mechanische model van verklaring niet volstaat</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Iedereen die niet denkt zoals ik, volge mij. Acta 16de Nederlands-Vlaamse Filosofiedag</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1994</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VUB Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">81-86</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789054870845</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Dooren, Wim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoff, Tineke</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De inconsistentie-adaptieve logica DDL</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aktueel Filosoferen</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1993</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eburon</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39–45</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Dooren, Wim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoff, Tineke</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De rationaliteit van persoonlijke inperkingen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aktueel Filosoferen</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1993</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eburon</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33–38</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Dooren, Wim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoff, Tineke</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wetenschappelijke verklaringen en subjectief verwacht nut</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Actueel Filosoferen</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1993</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eburon</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Delft</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">53-60</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pinxten, Rik</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leo Apostel on Dialectical Logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Philosophy of Leo Apostel, vol. 2: Descriptive and Critical Essays</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1989</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication and Cognition</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24–55</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van den Enden, Hugo</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Over de kloof tussen feit en norm, bekeken vanuit de hedendaagse wetenschapsfilosofie</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dwarsdenken. Omtrent Jaap Kruithof</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1989</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EPO</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">165–177</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theory and Experiment. Recent Insights and New Perspectives on Their Relation</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1988</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reidel</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dordrecht</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The structure of our knowledge system</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication and Cognition. Applied Epistemology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1987</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication and Cognition</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">101</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Apostel, Leo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sabbe, Herman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Some remarks on the structural similarity between music and logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reason, Emotion and Music. Towards a Common Structure for Arts, Sciences and Philosophies, Based on a Conceptual Framework for the Description of Music</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1986</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication &amp; Cognition</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127–143</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Reprint of \cite{D:rssm&amp;amp;lcc}&lt;/p&gt;</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hintikka, Jaakko</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dynamic Dialectical Logics as a Tool to Deal with and Partly Eliminate Unexpected Inconsistencies</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Logic of Discovery and the Logic of Discourse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1985</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Plenum Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">263–271</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Relevant derivability and classical derivability in Fitch-style and axiomatic formulations of relevant logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1985</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21–31</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Apostel, Leo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Breusegem, Erwin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Coninck, Jan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Waele, Danny</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pinxten, Rik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Swings, Jean</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Callebaut, Werner</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Marc</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pinxten, Rik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An empirical investigation on scientific observation</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theory of Knowledge and Science Policy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1979</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication &amp; Cognition</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3–36</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Batens, Diderik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Marc</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pinxten, Rik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Poriau, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vandamme, Fernand</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verisimilitude and meaning relations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CC77. International Workshop on the Cognitive Viewpoint</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1977</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ghent University</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">321–328</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record></records></xml>