诚信问题

Q3 Arts and Humanities Principia Pub Date : 2022-12-13 DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2022.e84395
Mario Bacelar Valente
{"title":"诚信问题","authors":"Mario Bacelar Valente","doi":"10.5007/1808-1711.2022.e84395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When adopting a sound logical system, reasonings made within this system are correct. The situation with reasonings expressed, at least in part, with natural language is much more ambiguous. One way to be certain of the correctness of these reasonings is to provide a logical model of them. To conclude that a reasoning process is correct we need the logical model to be faithful to the reasoning. In this case, the reasoning inherits, so to speak, the correctness of the logical model. There is a weak link in this procedure, which we call the faithfulness problem: how do we decide that the logical model is faithful to the reasoning that it is supposed to model? That is an issue external to logic, and we do not have rigorous formal methods to make the decision. The purpose of this paper is to expose the faithfulness problem (not to solve it). For that purpose, we will consider two examples, one from the geometrical reasoning in Euclid’s Elements and the other from a study on deductive reasoning in the psychology of reasoning.","PeriodicalId":38561,"journal":{"name":"Principia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Faithfulness Problem\",\"authors\":\"Mario Bacelar Valente\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/1808-1711.2022.e84395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When adopting a sound logical system, reasonings made within this system are correct. The situation with reasonings expressed, at least in part, with natural language is much more ambiguous. One way to be certain of the correctness of these reasonings is to provide a logical model of them. To conclude that a reasoning process is correct we need the logical model to be faithful to the reasoning. In this case, the reasoning inherits, so to speak, the correctness of the logical model. There is a weak link in this procedure, which we call the faithfulness problem: how do we decide that the logical model is faithful to the reasoning that it is supposed to model? That is an issue external to logic, and we do not have rigorous formal methods to make the decision. The purpose of this paper is to expose the faithfulness problem (not to solve it). For that purpose, we will consider two examples, one from the geometrical reasoning in Euclid’s Elements and the other from a study on deductive reasoning in the psychology of reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Principia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Principia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2022.e84395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Principia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2022.e84395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当采用一个健全的逻辑系统时,在这个系统中所做的推理是正确的。至少在一定程度上,用自然语言表达推理的情况要模糊得多。确定这些推理正确性的一种方法是提供它们的逻辑模型。为了得出推理过程是正确的结论,我们需要逻辑模型忠实于推理。在这种情况下,可以说,推理继承了逻辑模型的正确性。这个过程中有一个薄弱环节,我们称之为忠实问题:我们如何决定逻辑模型忠实于它应该建模的推理?这是一个逻辑之外的问题,我们没有严格的正式方法来做出决定。本文的目的是揭露(而不是解决)诚信问题。为此,我们将考虑两个例子,一个来自欧几里得元素中的几何推理,另一个来自推理心理学中的演绎推理研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Faithfulness Problem
When adopting a sound logical system, reasonings made within this system are correct. The situation with reasonings expressed, at least in part, with natural language is much more ambiguous. One way to be certain of the correctness of these reasonings is to provide a logical model of them. To conclude that a reasoning process is correct we need the logical model to be faithful to the reasoning. In this case, the reasoning inherits, so to speak, the correctness of the logical model. There is a weak link in this procedure, which we call the faithfulness problem: how do we decide that the logical model is faithful to the reasoning that it is supposed to model? That is an issue external to logic, and we do not have rigorous formal methods to make the decision. The purpose of this paper is to expose the faithfulness problem (not to solve it). For that purpose, we will consider two examples, one from the geometrical reasoning in Euclid’s Elements and the other from a study on deductive reasoning in the psychology of reasoning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Principia
Principia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Williamson sobre a vaguidade, o princípio da margem de erro e o princípio KK A negação do número 2 em Grundgesetze e § 46 de Grundlagen: Resposta a N.N. Pons Asinorum para a Lógica Proposicional Clássica Limitaciones de la complejidad en las Ciencias Ómicas: simplificación epistemológica en el abordaje de enfermedades Una Concepción Enactiva de Cultura: Enculturación como Acople Dinámico entre Seres Humanos y sus Entornos de Cultura Material
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1