Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
6-6-2007 9:00 AM
End Date
9-6-2007 5:00 PM
Abstract
One might ask of two or more texts—what can be inferred from them, taken together? If the texts happen to contradict each other in some respect, then the unadorned answer of standard logic is everything. But it seems to be a given that we often successfully reason with inconsistent information from multiple sources. The purpose of this paper will be to attempt to develop an adequate approach to accounting for this given.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
John Woods, Commentary on Plumer & Olson
Reader's Reactions
John Woods, Commentary on Plumer & Olson (June 2007)
Included in
Reasoning from Conflicting Sources
University of Windsor
One might ask of two or more texts—what can be inferred from them, taken together? If the texts happen to contradict each other in some respect, then the unadorned answer of standard logic is everything. But it seems to be a given that we often successfully reason with inconsistent information from multiple sources. The purpose of this paper will be to attempt to develop an adequate approach to accounting for this given.
