UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016


 Juniper Logan
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Logical Consequence UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Intuitive characterizations of consequence Modal: It is necessary (or apriori) that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. Provability: It is possible to prove the conclusion from the premises. No formal counterexamples: It is impossible to find a formal counterexample (a substitution instance, preserving the argument s form, where the premises are true and the conclusion false). Tarski s account develops the no formal counterexamples idea. 2 From Tarski s account to the modern modeltheoretic account Remove intermediate step of variables; directly interpret nonlogical constants. Variable domain. 3 Interpretational and representational semantics Distinction due to John Etchemendy [3]: Representational models represent different situations, different ways the world could be [holding meanings fixed]. Interpretational models represent different meanings the expressions could have had [holding the world fixed]. 4 Prawitz s criticism of the Tarskian account What do we want in a valid argument, besides truthpreservation? that the truth preservation be due to logical form that the truth preservation be necessary Prawitz [4] criticizes Tarski s account for not capturing the modal or epistemic element of consequence: It is said that with the help of valid inferences, we justify our beliefs and acquire knowledge. The modal character of a valid inference is essential here, and is commonly articulated by saying that a valid inference guarantees the March 10,
2 5. Standard problems with proofbased accounts truth of the conclusion, given the truth of the premises. It is because of this guarantee that a belief in the truth of the conclusion becomes justified when it has been inferred by the use of a valid inference from premises known to be true. But if the validity of an inference is equated with (1) [counterexamplefree] (or its variants), then in order to know that the inference is valid, we must already know, it seems, that the conclusion is true in case the premises are true. After all, according to this analysis, the validity of the inference just means that the conclusion is true in case the premises are, and that the same relation holds for all inferences of the same logical form as the given one. Hence, on this view, we cannot really say that we infer the truth of the conclusion by the use of a valid inference. It is, rather, the other way around: we can conclude that the inference is valid after having established for all inferences of the same form that the conclusion is true in all cases where the premises are. [4, p. 675] How persuasive is this argument? (Compare a very similar argument in Etchemendy [3, p. 93].) 5 Standard problems with proofbased accounts 1. Proof is systemrelative, but it seems arbitrary to link the definition of consequence to any particular formal system. 2. If we define consequence in terms of provability in some system, we face the problem that some systems are not sound. If we say in some sound system, our definition is circular, since sound just means that you can t derive anything in the system that isn t a logical consequence. 3. Not all proof systems are complete. Gödel s incompleteness theorem implies that, at least in the case of higherorder logics, there are always going to be logical consequences that can t be proved in a given system. 6 Prawitz s strategy Give a purely prooftheoretic account of what it is for a derivation to be a valid argument: Certain arguments (called canonical arguments ) count as valid because they are selfjustifying. These will be applications of the introduction rules for the constants. Introduction rules are selfjustifying because they determine the meanings of the expressions they introduce. Other arguments count as valid if there is a procedure for converting valid arguments for their premises into canonical proofs of their conclusions. March 10,
3 7. Carnap on meaning and inference 7 Carnap on meaning and inference Rudolf Carnap, Logical Syntax of Language: Up to now, in constructing a language, the procedure has usually been, first to assign a meaning to the fundamental mathematicological symbols, and then to consider what sentences and inferences are seen to be logically correct in accordance with this meaning. Since the assignment of the meaning is expressed in words, and is, in consequence, inexact, no conclusion arrived at in this way can very well be otherwise than inexact and ambiguous. The connection will only become clear when approached from the opposite direction: let any postulates and any rules of inference be chosen arbitrarily; then this choice, whatever it may be, will determine what meaning is to be assigned to the fundamental logical symbols. By this method, also, the conflict between the divergent points of view on the problem of the foundations of mathematics disappears. For language, in its mathematical form, can be constructed according to the preferences of any one of the points of view represented; so that no question of justification arises at all, but only the question of the syntactical consequences to which one or other of the choices leads, including the question of noncontradiction. [2, p. xv] Old way: means if... then. Now, what rules are valid given this meaning? New way: here are some rules for ; these determine a meaning for it. 8 Prior s Tonk Prior s Runabout Inference Ticket [6] is a tongueincheek response to this Carnapian line of thought. Look first at how Prior describes the view he s criticizing: The meaning of and can be completely given by laying down the standard introduction and elimination rules. Anyone who has learnt to perform these inferences knows the meaning of and, for there is simply nothing more to knowing the meaning of and than being able to perform these inferences. In particular, you don t have to grasp some concept that goes beyond what you get just by learning these rules. Prior asks, How do we know that for any two statements P and Q there is a statement with the properties ascribed to P&Q, i.e. a statement from which P and Q can both be derived, and which follows from P and Q together?...on the view we are considering such a doubt is quite misplaced, once we have introduced a word, say the word and, precisely in order to form a statement R with these properties from any pair of statements P and Q. The March 10,
4 9. Responses to Prior doubt reflects the old superstitious view that an expression must have some independently determined meaning before we can discover whether inferences involving it are valid or invalid. With analytically valid inferences this just isn t so. Now, the critical part. Prior points out that if all this is right, we can introduce a connective tonk governed by these rules: tonk tonkintro A A tonk B tonkelim A tonk B B These are perfectly clear rules, and we stipulate that tonk is the connective governed by them. So, these inferences are valid just in virtue of what tonk means. The nifty thing is that in a language with tonk we can derive anything from anything! Which, you might think, is bad. 9 Responses to Prior 9.1 Stevenson s Response J. T. Stevenson [7] replied: this just shows that we need to take the semantic viewpoint. To introduce a connective, you need to give a semantics (e.g. a truth table). The rules are then justified in terms of the semantics. The idea that we can define a connective in terms of inference rules governing it is just misguided. So, the problem with tonk is that there doesn t exist any truth table that validates these rules. In addition to existence, Stevenson points out, there are issues of uniqueness. Suppose I define % as follows: %intro A A % B I haven t said enough to pick out exactly which connective % is. Here s what we know about the truth table: A B A%B T T T T F T F T? F F? But the? s can be filled in any way we like and the rule will still hold. We could make them both F, so that A%B is equivalent to A, or we could make it like disjunction, or we could make them both T. Stevenson concludes that we have to introduce connectives semantically and justify the rules in relation to the semantics. March 10,
5 9.2 Belnap s Response 9.2 Belnap s Response Belnap [1] thinks this is an overreaction to Prior s article. He contrasts the synthetic mode of explaining parts in terms of wholes with the analytic mode of explaining wholes in terms of parts. Both are useful, he thinks, in logic as elsewhere. Prior doesn t show that we have to give up the synthetic mode; rather, that we need to understand its limitations. It would... be truly a shame to see the synthetic mode in logic pass away as a result of a severe attack of tonktitis. So, what, according to Belnap, goes wrong with tonk? The problem is that the rules for tonk are inconsistent with assumptions we ve already made. So tonk is bad in just the same way as Peano s?, which is defined as follows: a b? c d = d e f a + c c + d This definition seems clear enough, but it leads to bad results! 1 1?1 2 = 2 3 and 1 1?2 4 = 3 5 But we had already assumed that 1 2 = 2 4, and that equals can be substituted for equals yielding equals. Unless we give up these antecedent assumptions, we can now derive 2 3 = 3 5. What antecedent assumptions does tonk contradict? Well, we have assumed that the following rules exhaust the universally valid statements about deducibility that can be made without using any logical constants: Identity A A Weakening A 1,...,A n C A 1,...,A n B C Permutation A 1,...,A i, A i+1,...,an C A 1,...,A i+1, A i,...,a n C Contraction A 1,...,A n, A n C A 1,...,A n C Transitivity A 1,...,A m B&C 1,...,C n, B D A 1,...,A m, C 1,...,C n D Now, if we add tonk, we get another universally valid rule that we didn t have before: Anything Goes A B So the addition of tonk is not a conservative extension of our earlier system. The addition of a new connective C is a conservative extension of an old system iff all new statements of deducibility (i.e. all those that weren t implied by the old system) contain C. That is: nothing not involving the new vocabulary can be proved that wasn t provable before. conservative extension March 10,
6 10. Prawitz s Response Belnap appeals to the fact that adding tonk would give us a nonconservative extension of our original theory as a way of cashing out the idea that there is no such connective as tonk in prooftheoretic terms, without appealing to semantics, truth tables, etc. So, conservativeness is a prooftheoretic analogue to the existence of a truthfunction... Belnap also supplies a prooftheoretic analogue of uniqueness: To say that plonk describes a unique connective is to say that if another connective plink is given the same introduction and elimination rules, then they are prooftheoretically equivalent: Aplonk B Aplink B and Aplink B Aplonk B. Check your understanding by convincing yourself that the rules for the connective %, described above, do not satisfy Belnap s uniqueness requirement. That is: if we had two connectives, % 1 and % 2, governed only by the introduction rule for %, we could not show that A% 1 B A% 2 B and A% 2 B A% 1 B. Then show that the standard introduction and elimination rules for conjunction do satisfy Belnap s uniqueness requirement. That is, if you have two connectives, and &, that satisfy these rules, then you can prove that A B A&B and A&B A B. (This is not a formal assignment to be turned in, but you should do it so you understand the point.) 10 Prawitz s Response Prawitz s approach [4] is a bit different from Belnap s. Belnap has given up, effectively, on the idea that introduction rules are selfjustifying. On Belnap s view, a set of rules is justified only if it yields a conservative extension, and that s something that might require an external guarantee or proof. So, the rules are not self justifying. Prawitz wants to keep the idea that introduction rules for connectives are selfjustifying. (For a list, see p. 685, and note how bottom and negation are handled.) In [5] he puts the point this way: if somebody asks why the rule for &introduction... is a correct inference rule, one can answer only that this is just part of the meaning of conjunction: the meaning is determined partly by laying down that a conjunction is proved by proving both conjuncts, and partly by understanding that a proof of a conjunction could always be given in that way. And, in the more recent paper that you read: this amounts to making inferences by introduction valid valid by definition, so to say [4, p. 694]. How does he avoid Prior s criticism? By giving up the idea that elimination rules are selfjustifying. March 10,
7 REFERENCES REFERENCES The view, rather, is this: you can stipulate that the connective is governed by whatever introduction rules you like. (There are formal constraints: the rule must introduce just one connective, and the premises must be subformulas of the introduced sentence, etc.) Since you can t get a nonconservative extension just by adding introduction rules, 1 we re okay so far. What about the elimination rules? We show that they are valid by showing that anything that can be proved using elimination rules could, in principle, be proved without them. (This process of eliminating elimination rules is called normalization.) The details are discussed in the handout on Prawitz s prooftheoretic account of consequence. normalization References [1] N. D. Belnap. Tonk, Plonk and Plink. In: Analysis 22 (1961), pp [2] R. Carnap. The Logical Syntax of Language. Trans. by A. Smeaton. Open Court classics. Open Court, [3] John Etchemendy. The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, [4] Dag Prawitz. Logical Consequence From a Constructivist Point of View. In: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Ed. by Stewart Shapiro. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp [5] Dag Prawitz. Remarks on Some Approaches to the Concept of Logical Consequence. In: Synthese 62 (1985), pp [6] A. N. Prior. The Runabout InferenceTicket. In: Analysis 21 (1960), pp [7] J. T. Stevenson. Roundabout the Runabout Inferenceticket. In: Analysis 21 (1961). 1 Convince yourself of this! March 10,
Constructive Logic, Truth and Warranted Assertibility
Constructive Logic, Truth and Warranted Assertibility Greg Restall Department of Philosophy Macquarie University Version of May 20, 2000....................................................................
More informationIs the law of excluded middle a law of logic?
Is the law of excluded middle a law of logic? Introduction I will conclude that the intuitionist s attempt to rule out the law of excluded middle as a law of logic fails. They do so by appealing to harmony
More informationSemantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference
Semantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference Ebba Gullberg ebba.gullberg@philos.umu.se Sten Lindström sten.lindstrom@philos.umu.se Umeå University Abstract Is it possible to give a justification
More informationRemarks on a Foundationalist Theory of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh
For Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Remarks on a Foundationalist Theory of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh I Tim Maudlin s Truth and Paradox offers a theory of truth that arises from
More informationPHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE OVERVIEW LOGICAL CONSTANTS WEEK 5: MODELTHEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH
PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE WEEK 5: MODELTHEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH OVERVIEW Last week, I discussed various strands of thought about the concept of LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE, introducing Tarski's
More informationValidity of Inferences *
1 Validity of Inferences * When the systematic study of inferences began with Aristotle, there was in Greek culture already a flourishing argumentative practice with the purpose of supporting or grounding
More informationBoghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori
Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in
More informationA Liar Paradox. Richard G. Heck, Jr. Brown University
A Liar Paradox Richard G. Heck, Jr. Brown University It is widely supposed nowadays that, whatever the right theory of truth may be, it needs to satisfy a principle sometimes known as transparency : Any
More informationINTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms
1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include
More informationLogic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice
Logic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice Daniele Porello danieleporello@gmail.com Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC) University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 24
More informationReview of "The Tarskian Turn: Deflationism and Axiomatic Truth"
Essays in Philosophy Volume 13 Issue 2 Aesthetics and the Senses Article 19 August 2012 Review of "The Tarskian Turn: Deflationism and Axiomatic Truth" Matthew McKeon Michigan State University Follow this
More informationSemantic Foundations for Deductive Methods
Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the
More informationLogic & Proofs. Chapter 3 Content. Sentential Logic Semantics. Contents: Studying this chapter will enable you to:
Sentential Logic Semantics Contents: TruthValue Assignments and TruthFunctions TruthValue Assignments TruthFunctions Introduction to the TruthLab TruthDefinition Logical Notions TruthTrees Studying
More informationSemantic Entailment and Natural Deduction
Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment.
More informationIntersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh. Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne
Intersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne Abstract We offer a defense of one aspect of Paul Horwich
More informationA. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November
Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group
More informationCan Gödel s Incompleteness Theorem be a Ground for Dialetheism? *
논리연구 202(2017) pp. 241271 Can Gödel s Incompleteness Theorem be a Ground for Dialetheism? * 1) Seungrak Choi Abstract Dialetheism is the view that there exists a true contradiction. This paper ventures
More informationScott Soames: Understanding Truth
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXV, No. 2, September 2002 Scott Soames: Understanding Truth MAlTHEW MCGRATH Texas A & M University Scott Soames has written a valuable book. It is unmatched
More informationVagueness and supervaluations
Vagueness and supervaluations UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Supervaluations We saw two problems with the threevalued approach: 1. sharp boundaries 2. counterintuitive consequences
More informationWhat is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 PanHellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece
What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 PanHellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece Outline of this Talk 1. What is the nature of logic? Some history
More informationModule 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur
Module 5 Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Lesson 12 Propositional Logic inference rules 5.5 Rules of Inference Here are some examples of sound rules of inference. Each can be shown
More informationHourya BENIS SINACEUR. Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST) CNRSENSUniversité Paris 1. Juin 2010
Hourya BENIS SINACEUR Institut d Histoire et Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST) CNRSENSUniversité Paris 1 Juin 2010 Etchemendy s objections to Tarski s account of the notion of logical
More informationArtificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture  03 So in the last
More informationA Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic
A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic Sungwoo Park Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea Estonian Theory Days Jan 30, 2009 Outline Study of logic Model theory vs Proof theory Classical
More informationDoes Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction?
Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL  and thus deduction
More informationAn Introduction to. Formal Logic. Second edition. Peter Smith, February 27, 2019
An Introduction to Formal Logic Second edition Peter Smith February 27, 2019 Peter Smith 2018. Not for reposting or recirculation. Comments and corrections please to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk 1 What
More informationWilliams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism
Williams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism Nicholas K. Jones Noncitable draft: 26 02 2010. Final version appeared in: The Journal of Philosophy (2011) 108: 11: 633641 Central to discussion
More informationTWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW
DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY
More informationOutline. 1 Review. 2 Formal Rules for. 3 Using Subproofs. 4 Proof Strategies. 5 Conclusion. 1 To prove that P is false, show that a contradiction
Outline Formal roofs and Boolean Logic II Extending F with Rules for William Starr 092911 1 Review 2 Formal Rules for 3 Using Subproofs 4 roof Strategies 5 Conclusion William Starr hil 2310: Intro Logic
More information2.1 Review. 2.2 Inference and justifications
Applied Logic Lecture 2: Evidence Semantics for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Formal logic and evidence CS 4860 Fall 2012 Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2.1 Review The purpose of logic is to make reasoning
More informationElements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements. Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010
Elements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010 1 Why cover statements and arguments Decision making (whether in science or elsewhere)
More informationPotentialism about set theory
Potentialism about set theory Øystein Linnebo University of Oslo SotFoM III, 21 23 September 2015 Øystein Linnebo (University of Oslo) Potentialism about set theory 21 23 September 2015 1 / 23 Openendedness
More informationAppeared in: AlMukhatabat. A Trilingual Journal For Logic, Epistemology and Analytical Philosophy, Issue 6: April 2013.
Appeared in: AlMukhatabat. A Trilingual Journal For Logic, Epistemology and Analytical Philosophy, Issue 6: April 2013. Panu Raatikainen Intuitionistic Logic and Its Philosophy Formally, intuitionistic
More informationSqueezing arguments. Peter Smith. May 9, 2010
Squeezing arguments Peter Smith May 9, 2010 Many of our concepts are introduced to us via, and seem only to be constrained by, roughandready explanations and some sample paradigm positive and negative
More informationSituations in Which Disjunctive Syllogism Can Lead from True Premises to a False Conclusion
398 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume 38, Number 3, Summer 1997 Situations in Which Disjunctive Syllogism Can Lead from True Premises to a False Conclusion S. V. BHAVE Abstract Disjunctive Syllogism,
More informationPredicate logic. Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) Madrid Spain
Predicate logic Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) 28040 Madrid Spain Synonyms. Firstorder logic. Question 1. Describe this discipline/subdiscipline, and some of its more
More informationIntuitive evidence and formal evidence in proofformation
Intuitive evidence and formal evidence in proofformation Okada Mitsuhiro Section I. Introduction. I would like to discuss proof formation 1 as a general methodology of sciences and philosophy, with a
More informationReductio ad Absurdum, Modulation, and Logical Forms. Miguel LópezAstorga 1
International Journal of Philosophy and Theology June 25, Vol. 3, No., pp. 5965 ISSN: 2333575 (Print), 23335769 (Online) Copyright The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research
More informationFacts and Free Logic. R. M. Sainsbury
R. M. Sainsbury 119 Facts are structures which are the case, and they are what true sentences affirm. It is a fact that Fido barks. It is easy to list some of its components, Fido and the property of barking.
More information2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples
2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough
More informationFacts and Free Logic R. M. Sainsbury
Facts and Free Logic R. M. Sainsbury Facts are structures which are the case, and they are what true sentences affirm. It is a fact that Fido barks. It is easy to list some of its components, Fido and
More informationA Defense of Contingent Logical Truths
Michael Nelson and Edward N. Zalta 2 A Defense of Contingent Logical Truths Michael Nelson University of California/Riverside and Edward N. Zalta Stanford University Abstract A formula is a contingent
More informationReview of Philosophical Logic: An Introduction to Advanced Topics *
Teaching Philosophy 36 (4):420423 (2013). Review of Philosophical Logic: An Introduction to Advanced Topics * CHAD CARMICHAEL Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis This book serves as a concise
More informationExercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014
Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional
More informationOn Tarski On Models. Timothy Bays
On Tarski On Models Timothy Bays Abstract This paper concerns Tarski s use of the term model in his 1936 paper On the Concept of Logical Consequence. Against several of Tarski s recent defenders, I argue
More information1. Lukasiewicz s Logic
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 29/3 (2000), pp. 115 124 Dale Jacquette AN INTERNAL DETERMINACY METATHEOREM FOR LUKASIEWICZ S AUSSAGENKALKÜLS Abstract An internal determinacy metatheorem is proved
More informationdeduction to a chain. The chain has many links: we survey the links one after the
Penultimate draft of a paper published in Theoria, a Swedish journal of philosophy, vol. 74, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, 2008, pp. 295317 On the Copernican Turn in Semantics * Cesare Cozzo Department of
More informationHANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
More informationLecture 1 The Concept of Inductive Probability
Lecture 1 The Concept of Inductive Probability Patrick Maher Philosophy 517 Spring 2007 Two concepts of probability Example 1 You know that a coin is either twoheaded or twotailed but you have no information
More informationBeyond Symbolic Logic
Beyond Symbolic Logic 1. The Problem of Incompleteness: Many believe that mathematics can explain *everything*. Gottlob Frege proposed that ALL truths can be captured in terms of mathematical entities;
More information(Refer Slide Time 03:00)
Artificial Intelligence Prof. Anupam Basu Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture  15 Resolution in FOPL In the last lecture we had discussed about
More informationInstrumental reasoning* John Broome
Instrumental reasoning* John Broome For: Rationality, Rules and Structure, edited by Julian NidaRümelin and Wolfgang Spohn, Kluwer. * This paper was written while I was a visiting fellow at the Swedish
More informationCan Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility?
Can Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility? Nils Kurbis 1 Abstract Every theory needs primitives. A primitive is a term that is not defined any further, but is used to define others. Thus primitives
More informationChapter 9 Sentential Proofs
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 9 Sentential roofs 9.1 Introduction So far we have introduced three ways of assessing the validity of truthfunctional arguments.
More informationStudy Guides. Chapter 1  Basic Training
Study Guides Chapter 1  Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)
More informationConditionals II: no truth conditions?
Conditionals II: no truth conditions? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Arguments for the material conditional analysis As Edgington [1] notes, there are some powerful reasons
More informationA Closer Look At Closure Scepticism
A Closer Look At Closure Scepticism Michael BlomeTillmann 1 Simple Closure, Scepticism and Competent Deduction The most prominent arguments for scepticism in modern epistemology employ closure principles
More informationA Model of Decidable Introspective Reasoning with QuantifyingIn
A Model of Decidable Introspective Reasoning with QuantifyingIn Gerhard Lakemeyer* Institut fur Informatik III Universitat Bonn Romerstr. 164 W5300 Bonn 1, Germany email: gerhard@uran.informatik.unibonn,de
More informationCan Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility?
Can Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility? Nils Kurbis 1 Introduction Every theory needs primitives. A primitive is a term that is not defined any further, but is used to define others. Thus
More informationLogic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of
Logic: Inductive Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. The quality of an argument depends on at least two factors: the truth of the
More informationVarieties of Apriority
S E V E N T H E X C U R S U S Varieties of Apriority T he notions of a priori knowledge and justification play a central role in this work. There are many ways in which one can understand the a priori,
More informationEmpty Names and TwoValued Positive Free Logic
Empty Names and TwoValued Positive Free Logic 1 Introduction Zahra Ahmadianhosseini In order to tackle the problem of handling empty names in logic, Andrew Bacon (2013) takes on an approach based on positive
More informationNecessity and Truth Makers
JAN WOLEŃSKI Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego ul. Gołębia 24 31007 Kraków Poland Email: jan.wolenski@uj.edu.pl Web: http://www.filozofia.uj.edu.pl/janwolenski Keywords: Barry Smith, logic,
More informationQuantificational logic and empty names
Quantificational logic and empty names Andrew Bacon 26th of March 2013 1 A Puzzle For Classical Quantificational Theory Empty Names: Consider the sentence 1. There is something identical to Pegasus On
More informationForeknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments
Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 1 Warfield s argument for compatibilism................................ 1 2 Why the argument fails to show that free will and
More informationTruth and the Unprovability of Consistency. Hartry Field
Truth and the Unprovability of Consistency Hartry Field Abstract: It might be thought that we could argue for the consistency of a mathematical theory T within T, by giving an inductive argument that all
More informationI. In the ongoing debate on the meaning of logical connectives 1, two families of
What does & mean? Axel Arturo Barceló Aspeitia abarcelo@filosoficas.unam.mx Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM México Proceedings of the TwentyFirst World Congress of Philosophy, Vol. 5, 2007.
More informationEtchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence 1 Jared Bates, University of Missouri Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1999):
Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence 1 Jared Bates, University of Missouri Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1999): 47 54. Abstract: John Etchemendy (1990) has argued that Tarski's definition of logical
More informationAll They Know: A Study in MultiAgent Autoepistemic Reasoning
All They Know: A Study in MultiAgent Autoepistemic Reasoning PRELIMINARY REPORT Gerhard Lakemeyer Institute of Computer Science III University of Bonn Romerstr. 164 5300 Bonn 1, Germany gerhard@cs.unibonn.de
More informationHANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
More information6. Truth and Possible Worlds
6. Truth and Possible Worlds We have defined logical entailment, consistency, and the connectives,,, all in terms of belief. In view of the close connection between belief and truth, described in the first
More informationLOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 1019/3/2010
LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 1019/3/2010 LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH. LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES,
More informationLENT 2018 THEORY OF MEANING DR MAARTEN STEENHAGEN
LENT 2018 THEORY OF MEANING DR MAARTEN STEENHAGEN HTTP://MSTEENHAGEN.GITHUB.IO/TEACHING/2018TOM THE EINSTEINBERGSON DEBATE SCIENCE AND METAPHYSICS Henri Bergson and Albert Einstein met on the 6th of
More informationA defense of contingent logical truths
Philos Stud (2012) 157:153 162 DOI 10.1007/s110980109624y A defense of contingent logical truths Michael Nelson Edward N. Zalta Published online: 22 September 2010 Ó The Author(s) 2010. This article
More informationLogical Constants as Punctuation Marks
362 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume 30, Number 3, Summer 1989 Logical Constants as Punctuation Marks KOSTA DOSEN* Abstract This paper presents a prooftheoretical approach to the question "What
More informationThe Paradox of Knowability and Semantic AntiRealism
The Paradox of Knowability and Semantic AntiRealism Julianne Chung B.A. Honours Thesis Supervisor: Richard Zach Department of Philosophy University of Calgary 2007 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY This copy is to
More informationAnnouncements The Logic of Quantifiers Logical Truth & Consequence in Full Fol. Outline. Overview The Big Picture. William Starr
Announcements 10.27 The Logic of Quantifiers Logical Truth & Consequence in Full Fol William Starr 1 Hang tight on the midterm We ll get it back to you as soon as we can 2 Grades for returned HW will be
More informationFrom Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence
Prequel for Section 4.2 of Defending the Correspondence Theory Published by PJP VII, 1 From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence Abstract I introduce new details in an argument for necessarily existing
More informationSUPPOSITIONAL REASONING AND PERCEPTUAL JUSTIFICATION
SUPPOSITIONAL REASONING AND PERCEPTUAL JUSTIFICATION Stewart COHEN ABSTRACT: James Van Cleve raises some objections to my attempt to solve the bootstrapping problem for what I call basic justification
More informationThe distinction between truthfunctional and nontruthfunctional logical and linguistic
FORMAL CRITERIA OF NONTRUTHFUNCTIONALITY Dale Jacquette The Pennsylvania State University 1. TruthFunctional Meaning The distinction between truthfunctional and nontruthfunctional logical and linguistic
More informationFREGE AND SEMANTICS. Richard G. HECK, Jr. Brown University
Grazer Philosophische Studien 75 (2007), 27 63. FREGE AND SEMANTICS Richard G. HECK, Jr. Brown University Summary In recent work on Frege, one of the most salient issues has been whether he was prepared
More informationClass #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism
Philosophy 405: Knowledge, Truth and Mathematics Fall 2010 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism I. The Continuum Hypothesis and Its Independence The continuum problem
More informationA Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i. (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London. and. Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel
A Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London and Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel Abstract: We present a puzzle about knowledge, probability
More informationInternational Phenomenological Society
International Phenomenological Society The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics Author(s): Alfred Tarski Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Mar.,
More informationCONTENTS. Law Necessitarianism and the Importance of Being Intuitive Daniel Z. Korman 649 Putting Extrospection to Rest Aaron Z.
VOL. 55 NO. 221 OCTOBER 2005 ARTICLES CONTENTS Just War and the Supreme Emergency Exemption Christopher Toner 545 Global Justice and the Limits of Human Rights Dale Dorsey 562 Humean Supervenience and
More informationCan logical consequence be deflated?
Can logical consequence be deflated? Michael De University of Utrecht Department of Philosophy Utrecht, Netherlands mikejde@gmail.com in Insolubles and Consequences : essays in honour of Stephen Read,
More informationVAGUENESS. Francis Jeffry Pelletier and István Berkeley Department of Philosophy University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
VAGUENESS Francis Jeffry Pelletier and István Berkeley Department of Philosophy University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Vagueness: an expression is vague if and only if it is possible that it give
More informationhow to be an expressivist about truth
Mark Schroeder University of Southern California March 15, 2009 how to be an expressivist about truth In this paper I explore why one might hope to, and how to begin to, develop an expressivist account
More informationChadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDEIN
Chadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDEIN To classify sentences like This proposition is false as having no truth value or as nonpropositions is generally considered as being
More informationBonJour Against Materialism. Just an intellectual bandwagon?
BonJour Against Materialism Just an intellectual bandwagon? What is physicalism/materialism? materialist (or physicalist) views: views that hold that mental states are entirely material or physical in
More informationA Defense of the Kripkean Account of Logical Truth in FirstOrder Modal Logic
A Defense of the Kripkean Account of Logical Truth in FirstOrder Modal Logic 1. Introduction The concern here is criticism of the Kripkean representation of modal, logical truth as truth at the actualworld
More information1/7. The Postulates of Empirical Thought
1/7 The Postulates of Empirical Thought This week we are focusing on the final section of the Analytic of Principles in which Kant schematizes the last set of categories. This set of categories are what
More informationFuture Contingents, NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle Muddle
Future Contingents, NonContradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle Muddle For whatever reason, we might think that contingent statements about the future have no determinate truth value. Aristotle, in
More informationPrimitive Concepts. David J. Chalmers
Primitive Concepts David J. Chalmers Conceptual Analysis: A Traditional View A traditional view: Most ordinary concepts (or expressions) can be defined in terms of other more basic concepts (or expressions)
More informationWhat are TruthTables and What Are They For?
PY114: Work Obscenely Hard Week 9 (Meeting 7) 30 November, 2010 What are TruthTables and What Are They For? 0. Business Matters: The last marked homework of term will be due on Monday, 6 December, at
More informationGROUNDING AND LOGICAL BASING PERMISSIONS
Diametros 50 (2016): 81 96 doi: 10.13153/diam.50.2016.979 GROUNDING AND LOGICAL BASING PERMISSIONS Diego Tajer Abstract. The relation between logic and rationality has recently reemerged as an important
More informationThe way we convince people is generally to refer to sufficiently many things that they already know are correct.
Theorem A Theorem is a valid deduction. One of the key activities in higher mathematics is identifying whether or not a deduction is actually a theorem and then trying to convince other people that you
More informationReasoning, Argumentation and Persuasion
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 8 Jun 3rd, 9:00 AM  Jun 6th, 5:00 PM Reasoning, Argumentation and Persuasion Katarzyna Budzynska Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University
More informationHANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13
1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the
More informationMore reflections on consequence
More reflections on consequence Julien Murzi & Massimiliano Carrara October 13, 2014 Abstract This special issue collects together nine new essays on logical consequence: the relation obtaining between
More information