References of "Woods, John"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Peer Reviewed
See detailPreface
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Pelletier, Francis Jeffry; Woods, John

in Logic: A History of its Central Concepts (2012)

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (0 UL)
See detailLogic: A History of its Central Concepts
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Pelletier, Francis Jeffry; Woods, John

Book published by Elsevier (2012)

Detailed reference viewed: 136 (0 UL)
See detailSets and Extensions in the Twentieth Century
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Kanamori, Akihiro; Woods, John

Book published by Elsevier (2012)

Detailed reference viewed: 99 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailTemporal, numerical and meta-level dynamics in argumentation networks
Barringer, Howard; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Woods, John

in Argument and Computation (2012), 3(2-3), 143--202

Detailed reference viewed: 99 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailModal and temporal argumentation networks
Barringer, Howard; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Woods, John

in Argument and Computation (2012), 3(2-3), 203--227

Detailed reference viewed: 111 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailFallacies as Cognitive Virtues
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Woods, John

in Logic, Games and Philosophy: Foundational Perspectives (2009)

In its recent attention to reasoning that is agent-based and target-driven, logic has re-taken the practical turn and recovered something of its historic mission. In so doing, it has taken on in a quite ... [more ▼]

In its recent attention to reasoning that is agent-based and target-driven, logic has re-taken the practical turn and recovered something of its historic mission. In so doing, it has taken on in a quite general way a game-theoretic character, precisely as it was with the theory of syllogistic refutation in the Topics and On Sophistical Refutations, where Aristotle develops winning strategies for disputations. The approach that the present authors take toward the logic of practical reasoning is one in which cognitive agency is inherently strategic in its orientation. In particular, as is typically the case, individual agents set cognitive targets for themselves opportunistically, that is, in such ways that the attainment of those targets can be met with resources currently or forseeably at their disposal. This not to say that human reasoning is so game-like as to be utterly tendentious. But it does make the point that the human player of the cognitive game has no general stake in accepting undertakings that he has no chance of making good on. Throughout its long history, the traditional fallacies have been characterized as mistakes that are attractive, universal and incorrigible. In the present essay, we want to begin developing an alternative understanding of the fallacies. We will suggest that, when they are actually employed by beings like us, they are defensible strategies in game-theoretically describable pursuit of cognitive (and other) ends. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 84 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailResource-origins of Nonmonotonicity
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Woods, John

in Studia Logica (2008), 88(1), 85112

Formal nonmonotonic systems try to model the phenomenon that common sense reasoners are able to “jump” in their reasoning from assumptions ∆ to conclusions C without their being any deductive chain from ∆ ... [more ▼]

Formal nonmonotonic systems try to model the phenomenon that common sense reasoners are able to “jump” in their reasoning from assumptions ∆ to conclusions C without their being any deductive chain from ∆ to C. Such jumps are done by various mechanisms which are strongly dependent on context and knowledge of how the actual world functions. Our aim is to motivate these jump rules as inference rules designed to optimise survival in an environment with scant resources of effort and time. We begin with a general discussion and quickly move to Section 3 where we introduce five resource principles. We show that these principles lead to some well known nonmonotonic systems such as Nute’s defeasible logic. We also give several examples of practical reasoning situations to illustrate our principles. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 122 (1 UL)