Talk:Defeasible reasoning

?
This entry, although titled Defeasible Reasoning, says next to nothing about defeasible reasoning. It mentions a few things which are not defeasible reasoning, and that's it. So, in other words, according to the article, it holds that:

$$ \frac {\{\text{is-reasoning}(x)\}\models\neg\text{as-formal-as-deductive}(x), \neg\text{inductive}(x), \neg\text{retroductive}(x)} {\{\text{is-reasoning}(x)\}\models\text{defeasible}(x)} $$

Is defeasible reasoning such a broad term? Perhaps some examples are in order.

Since the subject of nonmonotonic logic was approached, how is defeasible reasoning/logic different from / like nonmonotonic logic? It is, for instance, my impression that circumscription, default logic, and autoepistemic logic are all nonmonotonic in nature.

usage and linkage of fixed-point
The usage of "fixed point" here links to the fixed-point disambiguation page, but it's likely not clear to a general reader which (if any) of the items listed on that page is the correct sense of "fixed point" in the context of semantics. Anyone want to take a stab at clarifying the usage of 'fixed-point' as it modifies semantics, adding info that to the disambiguation page or to a new page "fixed point (semantics)", and pointing the fixed point link here to that new page? Thanks! --Joe Decker (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

the example in the specificity section doesn't seem to make sense
It looks as if R1 and R1 have been jumbled because the "not"s do not pair up. There doesn't seem to be a simple fix that lets O1 make sense as a deduction. Mhuben (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The intro sentence is an absolute clusterfuck
'Defensible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is basedo n reasons that are defensible' tells absolutely nothing to people who don't already know what defensible reasoning is, and is also a mutated monster of an English sentence. Does someone with more knowledge of the subject than me want to change it?2001:630:212:238:7254:D2FF:FEC5:1EF6 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wittgenstein and Austin
'Wittgenstein, in turn, had many admirers, including the positivist legal scholar H.L.A. Hart and the speech act linguist John L. Austin,...' Was John L. Austin really an admirer of Wittgenstein? The reason I doubt this claim is that I've heard John Searle say that Austin was totally not an admirer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2612:D500:B4A6:B8EE:62F0:6D0F (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Defeasible reasoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050917110822/http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/Prin/txt/intro/Eco112c.html to http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Intro/Eco112c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)