🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug31.142217.14509@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, gemenis@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Theodor Gemenis) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> I am interested in logics appropriate for empirical science 
|> (or logics for knowledge), that is logics for axiomatize theories 
|> such as newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, etc. theories also 
|> beyond mathematics. 
|> I know the work of R. Carnap, P. Suppes, J. Sneed on this field 
|> and the work of N. Nilsson in AI (logic for knowledge representation).
|> 
|> I would be thankful for any indication concerning recent work
|> in this domain. Information on implemented systems for such logics 
|> is also from interest to me.


Your phrases "logics appropriate for empirical science", "logics
for knowledge", and "logics [to] axiomatize theories ..." would
seem to cover pretty diverse ground and do not, to my mind,
necessarily share a meaning.

I haven't played with this stuff for a long time.  In addition to
the names you mention, the other one that comes to mind is Richard
Montague.  See, for example, "Deterministic Theories" in _Formal_
Philosophy_ (Yale University Press, 1974).  (His stuff may be dealt
with by Sneed, but memory fails me.)  I believe that Clark Glymour
(still at Pitt?) was drifting in this area (perhaps in conjunction
with the Pitt CS or AI departments).  You might contact Henry
Kyburg (kyburg@cs.rochester.edu) who is spending virtually all of
his time in the Cog. Sci. program there now instead of in philosophy.
He has been doing a lot of stuff in the area of non-deductive methods
in AI.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

In article <BtuuGE.7Fr@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug31.142217.14509@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, gemenis@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Theodor Gemenis) writes:
> |> 
> |> 
> |> I am interested in logics appropriate for empirical science 
> |> (or logics for knowledge), that is logics for axiomatize theories 
> |> such as newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, etc. theories also 
> |> beyond mathematics. 
> |> I know the work of R. Carnap, P. Suppes, J. Sneed on this field 
> |> and the work of N. Nilsson in AI (logic for knowledge representation).
> |> 
> |> I would be thankful for any indication concerning recent work
> |> in this domain. Information on implemented systems for such logics 
> |> is also from interest to me.
> 
> 
> Your phrases "logics appropriate for empirical science", "logics
> for knowledge", and "logics [to] axiomatize theories ..." would
> seem to cover pretty diverse ground and do not, to my mind,
> necessarily share a meaning.
> 
> I haven't played with this stuff for a long time.  In addition to
> the names you mention, the other one that comes to mind is Richard
> Montague.  See, for example, "Deterministic Theories" in _Formal_
> Philosophy_ (Yale University Press, 1974).  (His stuff may be dealt
> with by Sneed, but memory fails me.)  I believe that Clark Glymour
> (still at Pitt?) was drifting in this area (perhaps in conjunction
> with the Pitt CS or AI departments).  You might contact Henry
> Kyburg (kyburg@cs.rochester.edu) who is spending virtually all of
> his time in the Cog. Sci. program there now instead of in philosophy.
> He has been doing a lot of stuff in the area of non-deductive methods
> in AI.
> -- 
> Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
> SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

I'd like to add Carl Hempel and Nelson Goodman (Fact Fiction and Forecast)
to the list..  Their stuff is pretty old now but definitely deserving of 
the title "classic works".

regards,
al hart