This volume presents the proceedings from the Eleventh Brazilian Logic Conference on Mathematical Logic held by the Brazilian Logic Society (co-sponsored by the Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science, State University of Campinas, Sao Paulo) in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. The conference and the volume are dedicated to the memory of professor Mario Tourasse Teixeira, an educator and researcher who contributed to the formation of several generations of Brazilian logicians. Contributions were made from leading (...) Brazilian logicians and their Latin-American and European colleagues. All papers were selected by a careful refereeing processs and were revised and updated by their authors for publication in this volume. There are three sections: Advances in Logic, Advances in Theoretical Computer Science, and Advances in Philosophical Logic. Well-known specialists present original research on several aspects of model theory, proof theory, algebraic logic, category theory, connections between logic and computer science, and topics of philosophical logic of current interest. Topics interweave proof-theoretical, semantical, foundational, and philosophical aspects with algorithmic and algebraic views, offering lively high-level research results. (shrink)
A collection of interviews with influential theorists working in philosophy of logic. The questions: Why were you initially drawn to the philosophy of logic? What are your main contributions to the philosophy of logic? What is the proper role of philosophy of logic in relation to other disciplines, and to other branches of philosophy? What have been the most significant advances in the philosophy of logic? What are the most important open problems in philosophy (...) of logic, and what are the prospects for progress? Interviews with JC Beall, John Lane Bell, Johan van Benthem, Patricia A. Blanchette, Otávio Bueno, James Cargile, Mark Colyvan, Newton Carneiro Affonso da Costa, Pascal Engel, Susan Haack, Jaakko J. Hintikka, Dale Jacquette, Penelope Maddy, Lawrence S. Moss, Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen, Graham Priest, Stephen Read, Nicholas Rescher, Stewart Shapiro, Peter Simons, Timothy Williamson, Jan Woleński. (shrink)
Questions are triggers for explicit events of ‘issue management’. We give a complete logic in dynamic-epistemic style for events of raising, refining, and resolving an issue, all in the presence of information flow through observation or communication. We explore extensions of the framework to multi-agent scenarios and long-term temporal protocols. We sketch a comparison with some alternative accounts.
Questions are triggers for explicit events of 'issue management'. We give a complete logic in dynamic-epistemic style for events of raising, refining, and resolving an issue, all in the presence of information flow through observation or communication. We explore extensions of the framework to multiagent scenarios and long-term temporal protocols. We sketch a comparison with some alternative accounts.
This paper argues for the idea that the logic of questions should focus its attention on the analysis of arguments in which questions play the role of conclusions. The relevant concepts of validity are discussed and the concept of the logic of questions of a semantically interpreted formalized language is introduced.
This article discusses various dangers that accompany the supposedly benign methods in behavioral evoltutionary biology and evolutionary psychology that fall under the framework of "methodological adaptationism." A "Logic of Research Questions" is proposed that aids in clarifying the reasoning problems that arise due to the framework under critique. The live, and widely practiced, " evolutionary factors" framework is offered as the key comparison and alternative. The article goes beyond the traditional critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. (...) Lewontin, to present problems such as the disappearance of evidence, the mishandling of the null hypothesis, and failures in scientific reasoning, exemplified by a case from human behavioral ecology. In conclusion the paper shows that "methodological adaptationism" does not deserve its benign reputation. (shrink)
A logic of questions and answers exists within the logic of statements, if we make the following identifications (roughly): "Whether" questions are identified with true exclusive disjunctions, and "which" questions are identified with true existential quantifications. The question-and-answer process is interpreted as an information-matching game. The question mark is not needed except as a device of abbreviation. Complete and partial answers can be distinguished and various relations of relevance, independence, and resolution defined.
Recently, it has become a custom to treat questions as a game between two subjects. Unfortunately, one rarely goesbeyond the scheme of Questioner-Scientist and Answerer-Nature, althoughthe Interlocutor so conceived displays some undesirable features. This paperargues for the idea that logic of questions can be build as a logic of the gamebetween “knowledge resources” persons or theories, rather than errant Scientist and omniscient Nature. To this end the concept of epistemically-possibleworlds is discussed, which is conceived as analogous (...) to that of possible worldsin modal logic. And, furthermore, the concepts of relation of epistemic alternativeness and of epistemically-alternative worlds are introduced. On thisbasis a version of semantics for propositional, three-valued logic of questionsis oﬀered and semantic proofs of some theses are given. (shrink)
Philosophers and scientists are concerned with the why and the how of things. Questions like the following are so much grist for the philosopher’s and scientist’s mill: How can we be free and yet live in a deterministic universe?, How do neural processes give rise to conscious experience?, Why does conscious experience accompany certain physiological events at all?, How is a three-dimensional perception of depth generated by a pair of two-dimensional retinal images?. Since Belnap and Steel’s pioneering work on (...) the logic of questions, Van Fraassen has managed to apply their approach in constructing an account of the logic of why-questions. Comparatively little, by contrast, has been written on the logic of how-questions despite the apparent centrality of questions such as How is it possible for us to be both free and determined? to philosophical enterprise.1 In what follows I develop a logic for how-questions of various sorts including how-questions of cognitive resolution, how-questions of manner, how-questions of method, of means, and of mechanism. (shrink)
Whether mathematical truths are syntactical (as Rudolf Carnap claimed) or empirical (as Mill actually never claimed, though Carnap claimed that he did) might seem merely an academic topic. However, it becomes a practical concern as soon as we consider the role of questions. For if we inquire as to the truth of a mathematical statement, this question must be (in a certain respect) meaningless for Carnap, as its truth or falsity is certain in advance due to its purely syntactical (...) (or formal-semantical) nature. In contrast, for Mill such a question is as valid as any other. These differing views have their consequences for contemporary erotetic logic. (shrink)
The paper explores two ways in which the logic of questions might aid in the understanding of explanations. First, the "logic" of question-answer sequences imposes constraints on what answers are acceptable for an inquirer. Secondly, there are field- specific type-requirements built into questions. There is always more to a question than meets the potential answerer's ear. It is argued that, since there are nonepistemic presuppositions of why-questions, there are no interesting necessary and sufficient conditions for (...) all explanations. Explanations are a family of concepts tied together by the thin thread of the logic of question-answer sequences. (shrink)
Whether mathematical truths are syntactical or empirical might seem merely an academic topic. However, it becomes a practical concern as soon as we consider the role of questions. For if we inquire as to the truth of a mathematical statement, this question must be meaningless for Carnap, as its truth or falsity is certain in advance due to its purely syntactical nature. In contrast, for Mill such a question is as valid as any other. These differing views have their (...) consequences for contemporary erotetic logic.Pitanje jesu li matematičke istine sintaktičke ili empirijske može se činiti puko akademskom temom. Međutim, to postaje praktično pitanje čim razmotrimo ulogu pitanjâ. Jer pitamo li za istinitost neke matematičke tvrdnje, za Carnapa ovo pitanje mora biti besmisleno, budući da je njezina istinitost ili neistinitost unaprijed izvjesna zahvaljujući njezinoj puko sintaktičkoj naravi. Nasuprot ovome, za Milla je takvo pitanje valjano kao i bilo koje drugo pitanje. Ova različita shvaćanja imaju svoje posljedice za suvremenu erotetičku logiku. (shrink)
The aim of this paper is to understand the philosophical role of Collingwood’s proposed logic of question and answer. I shall consider its historical background as a response to Bradley, to the “realists” and to the logical positivists. I shall also consider the similarities and differences between it and modern developments in logics of question and answer and also in anti-realist philosophical logic. In analysing Collingwood’s proposed logic, and its potential for development, I shall attempt a sketch (...) of how it would work out in formal terms. To be sure Collingwood dismissed the symbolism of Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica as “typographical jargon” and he thought the various artificial logical languages of his time to be “numerous and frightful offspring of propositional logic out of illiteracy”. Nevertheless he did recognise an important role for the logician in articulating his system, namely to identify what it is to be a proposition and what it is to be a question and in doing so to identify what constitutes an “absolute presupposition”. Moreover since Collingwood’s day there have been important developments in logic and semantics, which are expressed through typographical jargon, and yet which are highly relevant to Collingwood’s proposed logic and to its philosophical role. (shrink)
_Questions of Form _was first published in 1989. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions. In _Questions on Form_, Joelle Proust traces the concept of the analytic proposition from Kant's development of the notion down to its place in the work of Rudolf Carnap, a founder of logical empiricism and a key figure in contemporary analytic philosophy. Using a method known in France (...) as _topique comparative_,she provides a rigorous exposition of analyticity, situating it within four major philosophical systems—those of Kant, Bolzano, Frege, and Carnap—and clearly delineating its development from one system to the next. Proust takes as her point of departure Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. Though she makes clear that Kant drew on Locke, Hume, and Leibniz, she argues that his notion of analyticity was innovative, not simply an elaboration of something already found in their work. She shows that the analytic proposition unexpectedly came to play an important part in efforts to convert problems considered "transcendental" into questions of belonging to formal logic. Ultimately, her comparison of their systems reveals that the concept of the analytic, however specific its rile in each, remains linked to a foundationalist strategy—in effect, to the transcendentalist questions Kant used when he reinterpreted the findings of his empiricist predecessors. Hence, this book's provocative claim: today's so-called logical empiricism owes much more to Kant's notion of science than to Hume's. (shrink)
This critical edition of Albert of Saxony's _25 Questions on Logic_ treats issues such as the imposition, distribution, signification, and supposition of terms, and the truth and falsity, conversion, contradictoriness and kinds of propositions, together with problems concerning negotiations.
The pair (A, Δ ), where A is a physical quantity (an observable) and Δ a subset of the reals, may be called an 'experimental question'. The set Q of experimental questions is, in classical mechanics, a Boolean algebra, and in quantum mechanics an orthomodular lattice (and also a transitive partial Boolean algebra). The question is raised: can we specify a priori what algebraic structure Q must have in any theory whatsoever? Several proposals suggesting that Q must be a (...) lattice are discussed, and rejected in favor of the weak claim that Q must be a Boolean atlas. (shrink)
After biologist Deborah Gordon made a series of experimental discoveries in the 1980s, she argued that a change in terminology regarding the division of labor among castes of specialists was needed. Gordon’s investigations of the interactive effects of ants in colonies led her to believe that the established approach Edward O. Wilson had pioneered was biased in a way that made some alternative candidate adaptive explanations invisible. Gordon argued that this was because the term “division of labor” implied a division (...) among specialists that was unwarranted, and proposed “task allocation” as a better description that did not bias research against the alternative causes she had discovered. Gordon’s empirical findings and theoretical proposals also vindicate the initial critics of Wilson’s human sociobiology who have been dismissed as political radicals, but her proposals have been widely misunderstood by many contemporary behavioral ecologists. The terminological and methodological confusions rampant in contemporary discourse can be clarified by applying a framework developed by Elisabeth Lloyd involving an analysis of the constraints imposed by different research questions. Applying this framework will show how the methodological problems involving description raised by the initial critics of Wilson’s human sociobiology extended to his analysis of ants, indicating that they were not challenging Wilson’s naturalistic approach to the study of human evolution, but rather his methods. It will also show how confusion over how Gordon’s proposed research questions have been conflated with the possible answers she has argued ought to be investigated. This in turn will clarify contemporary disputes over her proposal to abandon the term “division of labor.”. (shrink)
There were in the past, just as there are in the present, several diverse attempts to establish a unique theory capable of identifying in all natural languages a similar, invariable basic structure of a logical nature. If such a theory exists, then there must be principles that rule the functioning of these languages and they must have a logical origin. Based on a work by the French linguist, Oswald Ducrot, entitled D’un mauvais usage de la logique , this paper aims (...) to present in a concise manner two of the above mentioned attempts. They were elaborated in diverse epochs and different arguments were put forward to support them. The first attempt was in XVII century France and its theoretic basis was the renowned ‘Port-Royal Logic’. The second attempt is recent and its theoretic support comes from Contemporary Logic. DOI: 10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n1p111. (shrink)
In 1913 Pierre Duhem published a lecture in which he summarized his then startling discovery that Galileo owed a great deal to medieval scholastic natural philosophers. The result of this discovery was not only to establish the history of medieval science as an autonomous scholarly discipline, but also to initiate intensive research into the background and sources of Galileo's work. No scholar has contributed more in recent years to this research than William Wallace. His Prelude to Galileo and his Galileo (...) and His Sources have gone a long way toward solving a number of problems concerning Galileo's connection to the medieval tradition. In two important new books, Wallace takes this research another step forward by documenting Galileo's participation in the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. (shrink)
Albert of Saxony was a major figure in fourteenth-century logic—one of the most creative and productive periods in the history of logic. He has, however, always been overshadowed by the towering figures of William Ockham and John Buridan, and hence his works are neither edited nor studied as much as they deserve.
First published in German in 1984 as volume 45 of Martin Heidegger’s collected works, this book is the first English translation of a lecture course he presented at the University of Freiburg in 1937–1938. Heidegger’s task here is to reassert the question of the essence of truth, not as a "problem" or as a matter of "logic," but precisely as a genuine philosophical question, in fact the one basic question of philosophy. Thus, this course is about the essence of (...) truth and the essence of philosophy. On both sides Heidegger draws extensively upon the ancient Greeks, on their understanding of truth as aletheia and their determination of the beginning of philosophy as the disposition of wonder. In addition, these lectures were presented at the time that Heidegger was composing his second magnum opus, Beiträge zur Philosophie, and provide the single best introduction to that complex and crucial text. (shrink)
This is the ninth volume of translations of major works by Martin Heidegger to be published by Indiana University Press. It is the second translation of one of his lecture courses by the late Andre Schuwer and Richard Rojcewicz. No other thinker who wrote in German brings to the fore more seriously the problems of the translation of his texts into English than Martin Heidegger. In a certain sense, one of the major themes of his work is translation. In a (...) lecture series given a few years after Basic Questions of Philosophy, he said: "Tell me what you think about translating and I will tell you who you are." Though we do not hear anything about the basis of their translation decisions, in the translators' foreword we learn something about the Gesamtausgabe [Collected Works] edition of Heidegger's texts as they are currently being brought out by Vittorio Klostermann Verlag: "The words of Heidegger are reconstructed with as much faithfulness as the editor can bring to the task, and they are then simply left to speak for themselves". All translation is, however, transformation and interpretation, and the bridging of two linguistic worlds. There is no choice but to read Heidegger's text with the original German nearby. The present translation of the course Heidegger gave during the Winter Semester of 1937 at the University of Freiburg retains the tempo of Heidegger's delivery in class, even though the German editor, Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, who worked with several revised and emended versions of the lectures, "deleted epithets and interjections, characteristic of the lecture style but disturbing in a printed text, to the extent that they were not already stricken by Heidegger himself'. A good many of Heidegger's emphases have not been carried over by the translators. There are frequent repetitions, reviews and recapitulations, which were part of Heidegger's pedagogic style in his steady pursuit of a topic. In addition to the text of the lectures themselves, there is an appendix which includes an outline of the course as Heidegger initially envisioned it. His original plan was abandoned, but a fairly substantial and thoroughly worked out portion of the first two sections and part of the third section of the course as originally outlined are also contained in the appendix. Finally, supplements to the last two sections of the lecture course as it was given are included. The editor notes that this course, first published in 1984, is of particular importance for understanding Heidegger's 1936-38 Beiträge zur Philosophie [Contributions About Philosophy ], which will also appear in translation in the near future from Indiana University Press. The theme of the course is the essence of truth. Heidegger had first given a public lecture with that title in 1930. Much of what is implied in the lecture, which was published only in 1943, is made explicit in these lectures. Therefore, they supplement and clarify that key text. In the course, Heidegger explores the characterization of truth as correctness, which obscures the early Greek experience of ἀλήθεια, understood as unconcealedness. Heidegger's phenomenological studies of wonder, admiration, astonishment, marvelling, and awe in §37 are masterly. The event about which there has been so much speculation is quite simply the possibility of a fresh start for thinking. This would emphatically not be a repetition of the Greek experience from which Western metaphysics originated, but requires a broad jump, an existential Quantensprung, à la Lessing and Kierkegaard, for which there must be a great deal of preparation of a certain kind since there is nothing leading up to it, neither introduction nor transition. Heidegger looks forward to an unprecedented event comparable to the emergence of philosophy out of early Greek life. At long last, Schuwer and Rojcewicz are prepared to render "Dasein" as "existence," which is correct. It has always been possible to dispense with the original German term, providing we bear in mind the place of another key term in Heidegger's vocabulary with which "Dasein" is easily confused, "Existenz". Heidegger's lecture courses, which he left behind fully written out and in most cases continued to annotate and revise through the years, provide the reader with a feel for what this remarkable teacher of thinking must have been like.--Miles Groth, Wagner College. (shrink)