Publications

Search

Show only items where

Author

Type

Term

Year

Keyword

Export 823 results:

] Title Type Year

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

B

Batens, Diderik. 2020. “Adaptive Fregean Set Theory”. Studia Logica 108: 903–939 (e-published 10 NOV 2019).

Batens, Diderik. 1977. “Inferentie” A. De Block, Have, T.T. Ten, and De Keyser, C.C. Standaard Encyclopedie voor Opvoeding en Onderwijs: 382–383.

Batens, Diderik, and Jean Paul Van Bendegem. 1985. “Relevant Derivability And Classical Derivability In Fitch-Style And Axiomatic Formulations Of Relevant Logics”. Logique et Analyse 28: 21–31.

Batens, Diderik. 2007. “Content Guidance In Formal Problem Solving Processes” Olga Pombo and Gerner, Alexander. Abduction and the Process of Scientific Discovery: 121–156.

Batens, Diderik, and Dagmar Provijn. 2001. “Pushing The Search Paths In The Proofs. A Study In Proof Heuristics”. Logique et Analyse 44: 113–134.

Batens, Diderik. 2014. “The Consistency Of Peano Arithmetic. A Defeasible Perspective” Patrick Allo and Van Kerkhove, Bart. Modestly Radical or Radically Modest. Festschrift for Jean Paul Van Bendegem on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday: 11–59.

Batens, Diderik. 2010. “Waar Stoppen?”. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 102: 196–198.

Batens, Diderik. 1993. “De Inconsistentie-Adaptieve Logica Ddl” Wim van Dooren and Hoff, Tineke. Aktueel Filosoferen: 39–45.

Batens, Diderik. 1986. “Rich Relevant Logics Based On A Simple Type Of Semantics”. Logique et Analyse 29: 437–457.

Batens, Diderik, and Joke Meheus. 2001. “On The Logic And Pragmatics Of The Process Of Explanation” Mika Kiikeri and Ylikoski, Petri. Explanatory Connections. Electronic Essays Dedicated to Matti Sintonen. http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/kfil/matti/.

Batens, Diderik. 2017. “Pluralism In Scientific Problem Solving. Why Inconsistency Is No Big Deal”. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies 32: 149–177.

Batens, Diderik. 1971. “Some Objections To Keith Lehrer's Rule Ir”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22: 357–362.

Batens, Diderik. 1989. “Over De Kloof Tussen Feit En Norm, Bekeken Vanuit De Hedendaagse Wetenschapsfilosofie” Hugo Van den Enden. Dwarsdenken. Omtrent Jaap Kruithof: 165–177.

Batens, Diderik, and Joke Meheus. 1997. “Over Het (Vermeende) Conflict Tussen Godsgeloof En De Wetenschappen”. Mores 42: 401–415.

Batens, Diderik, Joke Meheus, and Dagmar Provijn. 2006. An Adaptive Characterization Of Signed Systems For Paraconsistent Reasoning.

Batens, Diderik. 1980. “A Completeness-Proof Method For Extensions Of The Implicational Fragment Of The Propositional Calculus”. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21: 509–517.

Batens, Diderik. 2009. “Towards A Dialogic Interpretation Of Dynamic Proofs” Cédric Dégremont, Keiff, Laurent, and Rückert, Helge. Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of Shahid Rahman: 27–51.

Batens, Diderik. 2000. “Towards The Unification Of Inconsistency Handling Mechanisms”. Logic and Logical Philosophy 8: 5–31.

Beirlaen, Mathieu. 2012. “A Unifying Framework For Reasoning About Normative Conflicts” Michal Pelis and Puncochar, Vit. The logica yearbook 2011: 1–14.

Beirlaen, Mathieu, Bert Leuridan, and Frederik Van De Putte. In Press. “A Logic For The Discovery Of Deterministic Causal Regularities”. Synthese: 1–33.

Beirlaen, Mathieu, Christian Straßer, and Joke Meheus. 2013. “An Inconsistency-Adaptive Deontic Logic For Normative Conflicts”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42: 285–315.

Beirlaen, Mathieu. 2011. “Aristotle's Modal Proofs, By Adriane Rini (Review; In Dutch)”. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 4: 749-751.

Beirlaen, Mathieu. 2012. “Towards More Conflict-Tolerant Deontic Logics” Bart Van Kerkhove, Libert, Thierry, Vanpaemel, Geert, and Marage, Pierre. Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II: 1-8.

Beirlaen, Mathieu, and Christian Straßer. 2013. “Non-Monotonic Reasoning With Normative Conflicts In Multi-Agent Deontic Logic”. Journal of Logic and Computation 24: 1179–1207.

Beirlaen, Mathieu. 2011. “Ethical Consistency And The Logic Of Ought”. Theoretical and applied ethics 1: 45–51.

Pages