Hans Lycke

Learn More
Most logic–based approaches characterize abduction as a kind of backwards deduction plus additional conditions, which means that a number of conditions is specified that enable one to decide whether or not a particular abductive inference is sound (one of those conditions may for example be that abductive consequences have to be compatible with the(More)
In Gricean pragmatics, generalized conversational implicatures (GCI) are the pragmatic rules that allow the hearer to derive the intended meaning of the sentences uttered by the speaker. Moreover, in contradistinction to partic-ularized conversational implicatures, GCI only depend on what is said, and not on the linguistic context. One of the main(More)
Hearers get at the intended meaning of uncooperative utterances (i.e. utterances that conflict with the prescriptions laid down by the Gricean maxims) by pragmatically deriving sentences that reconcile these utterances with the maxims. Such pragmatic derivations are made according to pragmatic rules called implicatures. As they are pragmatic in nature, the(More)
When searching for an explanation for a (puzzling) phenomenon, people often reason backwards: from the explanandum to possible explanations. As such, they perform a reasoning process usually called abduction. All abduction processes share a common element: inferences based on the argumentation schema known as Affirming the Consequent (AC): If the classical(More)
Abduction in Logic. When searching an explanation for a (puzzling) phenomenon, people often reason backwards, from the phenomenon to be explained to possible explanations (see e.g. Aliseda–Llera [1]). When they do so, they perform abductive inferences, inferences based on the argumentation schema known as Affirming the Consequent: [AC] A ⊃ B, B A As AC is(More)