Javascript must be enabled to continue!
(Conceptual) explanations in logic
View through CrossRef
Abstract
To explain phenomena in the world is a central human activity and one of the main goals of rational inquiry. There are several types of explanation: one can explain by drawing an analogy, as one can explain by dwelling on the causes (see e.g. see [Woodward (2004, Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford University Press, Oxford)]. Amongst these different kinds of explanation, in the last decade, philosophers have become receptive to those explanations that explain by providing the reasons (or the grounds) why a statement is true; these explanations are often called conceptual explanations (e.g. see [Betti (2010, Explanation in metaphysics and Bolzano's theory of ground and consequence. Logique et analyse, 211:281316)]). The main aim of the paper is to propose a logical account of conceptual explanations. We will do so by using the resources of proof theory, in particular sequent rules analogous to deep inferences ([e.g. see Brunnler (2004, Deep Inference and Symmetry in Classical Proofs. Logoc Verlag)]). The results we provide not only shed light on conceptual explanations themselves, but also on the role that logic and logical tools might play in the burgeoning field of inquiry concerning explanations. Indeed, we conclude the paper by underlining interesting links between the present research and some other existing works on explanations and logic that have arise in recent years, e.g. see [Arieli et al. (2022, Explainable logic-based argumentation. Computational Models of Argument, 353:3243); Darwiche and Hirth (2023, On the (complete) reasons behind decisions. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 32:6388); Piazza, Pulcini, and Sabatini (2023, Abduction as deductive saturation: a proof-theoretic inquiry. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 52:15751602)].
For here it is for the empirical scientist to
know the fact and for the mathematical to
know the reason why (our emphasis)
[Aristotle (1993, Posterior Analytics.
Oxford University Press, Oxford)].
Title: (Conceptual) explanations in logic
Description:
Abstract
To explain phenomena in the world is a central human activity and one of the main goals of rational inquiry.
There are several types of explanation: one can explain by drawing an analogy, as one can explain by dwelling on the causes (see e.
g.
see [Woodward (2004, Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford)].
Amongst these different kinds of explanation, in the last decade, philosophers have become receptive to those explanations that explain by providing the reasons (or the grounds) why a statement is true; these explanations are often called conceptual explanations (e.
g.
see [Betti (2010, Explanation in metaphysics and Bolzano's theory of ground and consequence.
Logique et analyse, 211:281316)]).
The main aim of the paper is to propose a logical account of conceptual explanations.
We will do so by using the resources of proof theory, in particular sequent rules analogous to deep inferences ([e.
g.
see Brunnler (2004, Deep Inference and Symmetry in Classical Proofs.
Logoc Verlag)]).
The results we provide not only shed light on conceptual explanations themselves, but also on the role that logic and logical tools might play in the burgeoning field of inquiry concerning explanations.
Indeed, we conclude the paper by underlining interesting links between the present research and some other existing works on explanations and logic that have arise in recent years, e.
g.
see [Arieli et al.
(2022, Explainable logic-based argumentation.
Computational Models of Argument, 353:3243); Darwiche and Hirth (2023, On the (complete) reasons behind decisions.
Journal of Logic Language and Information, 32:6388); Piazza, Pulcini, and Sabatini (2023, Abduction as deductive saturation: a proof-theoretic inquiry.
Journal of Philosophical Logic, 52:15751602)].
For here it is for the empirical scientist to
know the fact and for the mathematical to
know the reason why (our emphasis)
[Aristotle (1993, Posterior Analytics.
Oxford University Press, Oxford)].
Related Results
Rationality and Logic
Rationality and Logic
An argument that logic is intrinsically psychological and human psychology is intrinsically logical, and that the connection between human rationality and logic is both constitutiv...
Greek and Roman Logic
Greek and Roman Logic
In ancient philosophy, there is no discipline called “logic” in the contemporary sense of “the study of formally valid arguments.” Rather, once a subfield of philosophy comes to be...
Explanation in history and social science
Explanation in history and social science
Historians and social scientists explain at least two sorts of things: (a) those individual human actions that have historical or social significance, such as Stalin’s decision to ...
Counterfactual Models for Fair and Adequate Explanations
Counterfactual Models for Fair and Adequate Explanations
Recent efforts have uncovered various methods for providing explanations that can help interpret the behavior of machine learning programs. Exact explanations with a rigorous logic...
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a l...
Conceptual Development in Early Childhood
Conceptual Development in Early Childhood
The study of conceptual development in early childhood seeks to understand how infants and young children learn to filter, organize, and store disparate pieces of information, expe...
Magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic coupling interconnect wire using multiferroic logic scheme
Magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic coupling interconnect wire using multiferroic logic scheme
Nowadays, the intense research effort is focused on exploring alternative emerging device to perform binary logical function. A promising device technology is multiferroic nanomagn...
Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach
Explaining Data-Driven Decisions made by AI Systems: The Counterfactual Approach
We examine counterfactual explanations for explaining the decisions made by model-based AI systems. The counterfactual approach we consider defines an explanation as a set of the s...

