Walter Carnielli

This paper introduces new logical systems which axiomatize a formal representation of inconsistency (here taken to be equivalent to contradictoriness) in classical logic. We start from an intuitive semantical account of inconsistent data, fixing some basic requirements, and provide two distinct sound and complete axiomatics for such semantics, LFI1 and LFI2, as well as their first-order extensions, LFI1* and LFI2*, depending on which additional requirements are considered. These formal systems are examples of what we dub Logics of Formal Inconsistency (LFI) and form part of a much larger family of similar logics. We also show that there are translations from classical and paraconsistent first-order logics into LFI1* and LFI2*, and back. Hence, despite their status as subsystems of classical logic, LFI1* and LFI2* can codify any classical or paraconsistent reasoning.

EN In his “Logic, Language, and Knowledge” Chateaubriand denounces the tyranny of belief, but takes some positions on knowledge and justification which seem to be too exacting. The fact that Chateaubriand derives constraints on the notion of justification by a close parallel to the notion of proof makes it unnecessarily loaded with the individual, rather than with the collective perspective. His position seems to leave little room for common knowledge, collective knowledge and usual common-sense knowledge, and absolutely no room for explaining how people take correct decisions based on apparently faulty notions of knowledge and justification. PT Em “Logic, Language, and Knowledge” Chateaubriand denuncia a tirania da crença, mas toma posições sobre conhecimento e justificação que parecem demasiado exigentes. O fato de Chateaubriand derivar condições sobre a noção de justificação a partir de uma estreita analogia com a noção de prova torna a noção de justiticação desnecessariamente carregada com a perspectiva indivídual, em detrimento da perspectiva coletiva. Sua posição parece deixar pouco espaço para noções como conhecimento comum, conhecimento coletivo e senso comum, e absolutamente nenhum espaço para explicar como as pessoas tomam decisões corretas com base em noções aparentemente errôneas de conhecimento e de justificação.

Abduction or retroduction, as introduced by C.S. Peirce in the double sense of searching for explanatory instances and providing an explanation is a kind of complement for usual argumentation. There is, however, an inferential step from the explanandum to the abductive explanans. Whether this inferential step can be captured by logical machinery depends upon a number of assumptions, but in any case it suffers in principle from the triviality objection: any time a singular contradictory explanans occurs, the system collapses and stops working. The traditional remedies for such collapsing are the expensive mechanisms of consistency maintenance, or complicated theories of non-monotonic derivation that keep the system running at a higher cost. I intend to show that the robust logics of formal inconsistency, a particular category of paraconsistent logics which permit the internalization of the concepts of consistency and inconsistency inside the object language, provide simple yet powerful techniques for automatic abduction. Moreover, the whole procedure is capable of automatization by means of the tableau proof-procedures available for such logics. Some motivating examples are discussed in detail.