Museum of Outstanding Figures in Ukrainian Culture

This paper deals with a famous problem of epistemic logic – logical omniscience. Logical omniscience occurs in the logical systems where the axiomatics is complete and consequently an agent using inference rules knows everything about the system. Logical omniscience is a major problem due to complexity problems and the inability for adequate human reasoning modeling. It is studied both informal logic and philosophy of psychology (bounded rationality). It is important for bounded rationality because it reflects the problem of formal characterization of purely psychological mechanisms. Paper proposes to solve it using the ideas from the philosophical bounded rationality and intuitionistic logic. Special regions of deductible formulas developed according to psychologistic criterion should guide the deductive model. The method is compared to other ones presented in the literature on logical omniscience such as Hintikka’s and Vinkov and Fominuh. Views from different perspectives such as computer science and artificial intelligence are also provided.

Akhlak Siswa terhadap Guru Pada Pendekatan Normatif di Dalam Al-Qur’an dan Hadis

The normative approach is to understand religion using the framework of God's knowledge, the view of the main and original teachings from God in which there is no human reasoning. The purpose of this study was to see the morals of students towards teachers according to the Qur'an and Hadith. This research method is descriptive qualitative. The method in this study is a library method, the data collected are books and previous studies that are relevant for this research. In the data source section, there are verses from the Qur'an and hadith that contain students' morals towards teachers, reading books that refer to research theory, and several related previous studies. Data collection techniques used reading and note-taking techniques. The data analysis technique in this study is content analysis using a normative approach to the text in the verses of the Qur'an and Hadith and in the form of articles from the journal Sinta 2-5 as many as 4 articles containing moral habits based on a normative approach. Normative matters regarding student morals in the school community and family environment do need to be emphasized according to the verses of the Qur'an and hadith, this is able to form noble character in children from an early age.

A semiotic analysis of multiple systems of logic: using tagmemic theory to assess the usefulness and limitations of formal logics, and to produce a mathematical lattice model including multiple systems of logic

Tagmemic theory as a semiotic theory can be used to analyze multiple systems of logic and to assess their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis constitutes an application of semiotics and also a contribution to understanding of the nature of logic within the context of human meaning. Each system of logic is best adapted to represent one portion of human rationality. Acknowledging this correlation between systems and their targets helps explain the usefulness of more than one system. Among these systems, the two-valued system of classical logic takes its place. All the systems of logic can be incorporated into a complex mathematical model that has a place for each system and that represents a larger whole in human reasoning. The model can represent why tight formal systems of logic can be applied in some contexts with great success, but in other contexts are not directly applicable. The result suggests that human reasoning is innately richer than any one formal system of logic.

What Should We Believe About Belief?

This chapter aims to set the scene. First, it sets out why we should about beliefs, and about beliefs. To this end, it surveys some of the rich philosophical and psychological literature on how beliefs are acquired and updated. Second, it aims to show that the existing literature, illuminating though it is, doesn’t adequately explain how and why we come to believe what we do and act as we do. Against philosophers and cognitive scientists who argue that beliefs matter less than we might think, or that people have more accurate beliefs than they sometimes let on, the chapter argues that people’s beliefs matter for their behavior and that bad beliefs are an important phenomenon. It then goes on to review explanations of bad belief stemming from or inspired by dual process accounts of human reasoning. It argues that these accounts face difficulties significant enough to warrant developing an alternative account of belief formation.

Set-Valued Uncertain Process: Definition and Some Properties

Some phenomena are developing over time, while they are uncertain sets at each moment. From an uncertain set, we mean an unsharp concept, such as “illness” and “recovery”, that is not exactly clear, even for an expert. The values of a parameter that are considered “recovery” would guide one to explain the underlying concept quantitatively. For instance, in recovering from some disease, different levels of health might be assumed. Particularly, at each specific time moment, being healthy to some degree would be measured by belonging parameter values to a set of numbers with a specific belief degree. This set might be extracted using imprecisely observed data, while an expert opinion completely expresses the belief degree. Such concepts would direct one to employ uncertainty theory as a strong axiomatic mathematical framework for modeling human reasoning. Another important feature of these sets is their variation over time. For instance, the set defining “recovery” at the beginning stage of recovery in a disease would be completely or partially different from that at other stages. These characteristics result in considering a sequence of evolving sets over time. Analyzing the behavior of such a sequence motivated us to define the set-valued uncertain process. This concept is a combination of uncertain set, uncertain process, and uncertain sequence. Here, we introduce the main concept. Some properties are extracted and clarified, along with some illustrative examples.

Explaining the Evidence

How do we make sense of complex evidence? What are the cognitive principles that allow detectives to solve crimes, and lay people to puzzle out everyday problems? To address these questions, David Lagnado presents a novel perspective on human reasoning. At heart, we are causal thinkers driven to explain the myriad ways in which people behave and interact. We build mental models of the world, enabling us to infer patterns of cause and effect, linking words to deeds, actions to effects, and crimes to evidence. But building models is not enough; we need to evaluate these models against evidence, and we often struggle with this task. We have a knack for explaining, but less skill at evaluating. Fortunately, we can improve our reasoning by reflecting on inferential practices and using formal tools. This book presents a system of rational inference that helps us evaluate our models and make sounder judgments.

Early emerging probabilistic estimates govern judgments about possibility

The complex probabilistic properties of specific events determine the number or range of possible outcomes they can produce (i.e., outcome entropy). Do humans use estimates of outcome entropy for real-world events to reason about what is possible? We test whether adults (N=106) and children (N=368) use such estimates to constrain their judgments about outcomes for complex, real-world events including paint mixing and skin-color inheritance. Here we show that adults’ and children’s judgments reflect awareness of outcome entropy, such that fewer outcomes are deemed possible for deterministic events than probabilistic ones. Evidence of this sophisticated capacity appears between four and five years of age. Taken together, the results suggest that outcome entropy is a fundamental and early emerging factor in human reasoning about what is possible.

Is There a Scientific Method?

Modern science relies largely on method or, rather, on the claim that by employing a systematic, impersonal method, human reasoning can transcend the mind’s subjective experience of reality and discover the true, external causes of experience. In the early stages of modern science’s emergence out of medieval and Renaissance nature philosophy, Francis Bacon argued that this method was to be based on induction and experiment, without a priori mental input and with a minimum of mathematics. Rene Descartes argued that the required method was to be based on deduction, mathematics, and a priori and innate ideas, with a minimum of experiment. For Descartes, experiment served primarily as a check on deductive reasoning; for Bacon, experiment was a source of knowledge and constrained our inductive reasoning about empirical facts. Despite their differing styles, Descartes and Bacon together concretized the idea that a systematic method of reasoning could give us knowledge of the world.