In this article, our aim is to take a step towards a full understanding of the notion of paraconsistency in the context of metainferential logics. Following the work initiated by Barrio et al. [2018], we will consider a metainferential logic to be paraconsistent whenever the metainferential version of Explosion (or meta-Explosion) is invalid. However, our contribution consists in modifying the definition of meta-Explosion by extending the standard framework and introducing a negation for inferences and metainferences. From this new perspective, Tarskian paraconsistent logics such as LP will not turn out to be metainferentially paraconsistent, in contrast to, for instance, non-transitive logics like ST. Finally, we will end up by defining a logic which is metainferentially paraconsistent at every level, and discussing whether this logic is uniform through translations.
{"title":"Metainferential Paraconsistency","authors":"Bruno Da Ré, Mariela Rubin, Paula Teijeiro","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.008","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, our aim is to take a step towards a full understanding of the notion of paraconsistency in the context of metainferential logics. Following the work initiated by Barrio et al. [2018], we will consider a metainferential logic to be paraconsistent whenever the metainferential version of Explosion (or meta-Explosion) is invalid. However, our contribution consists in modifying the definition of meta-Explosion by extending the standard framework and introducing a negation for inferences and metainferences. From this new perspective, Tarskian paraconsistent logics such as LP will not turn out to be metainferentially paraconsistent, in contrast to, for instance, non-transitive logics like ST. Finally, we will end up by defining a logic which is metainferentially paraconsistent at every level, and discussing whether this logic is uniform through translations.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45351209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article deals with an alternative interpretation of syllogistics, different from the classical (extensional) one: an intensional one, in which subject and predicate are not associated with a set of individuals (the extension of the concept) but a set of attributes (the content of the concept). The authors of the paper draw attention to the fact that this approach was first proposed by Leibniz in works on logical calculus, which for a long time remained in the shadow of his other philosophical works. Currently, the intensional approach is gaining more and more popularity due to the development of non-classical logics, and the article will present several existing intensional formal syllogistic semantics. The paper will also consider another historical approach to syllogistics, associated with the name of the Russian logician Nikolai Vasiliev, who is not only one of the founders of non-classical (non-Aristotelian logic) but also of a different intensional interpretation of such logic. The authors, along with the already known formalizations of Vasiliev’s ideas, present two new systems. One of them is a reconstruction of one type of imaginary logic with statements of three qualities: affirmative and two types of negative statements (with absolute and ordinary negation). The second system is the one that is adequate to semantics, in which instead of the four classical ones, only three types of statements are presented (two particular statements are replaced by one - accidental), and their significance is determined through the relation of the classical logical entailment. Both of them are interpreted intensionally. The intensional approach in logic and, in particular, in syllogistics allows us to expand the class of accepted principles (which occurs due to the expansion of the class of correct moods of syllogisms).
{"title":"Intensional Semantics for Syllogistics: what Leibniz and Vasiliev Have in Common","authors":"Antonina V. Konkova, Maria M. Legeydo","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.006","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with an alternative interpretation of syllogistics, different from the classical (extensional) one: an intensional one, in which subject and predicate are not associated with a set of individuals (the extension of the concept) but a set of attributes (the content of the concept). The authors of the paper draw attention to the fact that this approach was first proposed by Leibniz in works on logical calculus, which for a long time remained in the shadow of his other philosophical works. Currently, the intensional approach is gaining more and more popularity due to the development of non-classical logics, and the article will present several existing intensional formal syllogistic semantics.\u0000The paper will also consider another historical approach to syllogistics, associated with the name of the Russian logician Nikolai Vasiliev, who is not only one of the founders of non-classical (non-Aristotelian logic) but also of a different intensional interpretation of such logic. The authors, along with the already known formalizations of Vasiliev’s ideas, present two new systems. One of them is a reconstruction of one type of imaginary logic with statements of three qualities: affirmative and two types of negative statements (with absolute and ordinary negation). The second system is the one that is adequate to semantics, in which instead of the four classical ones, only three types of statements are presented (two particular statements are replaced by one - accidental), and their significance is determined through the relation of the classical logical entailment. Both of them are interpreted intensionally.\u0000The intensional approach in logic and, in particular, in syllogistics allows us to expand the class of accepted principles (which occurs due to the expansion of the class of correct moods of syllogisms).","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44746129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Systems of paraconsistent logics violate the law of explosion: from contradictory premises not every formula follows. One of the philosophical options for interpreting the contradictions allowed as premises in these cases was put forward recently by Carnielli and Rodrigues, with their epistemic approach to paraconsistent logics. In a nutshell, the plan consists in interpreting the contradictions in epistemic terms, as indicating the presence of non-conclusive evidence for both a proposition and its negation. Truth, in this approach, is consistent and is dealt with by classical logic. In this paper we discuss the fate of the Liar paradox in this picture. While this is a paradox about truth, it cannot be accommodated by the classical part of the approach, due to trivialization problems. On the other hand, the paraconsistent part does not seem fit as well, due to the fact that its intended reading is in terms of non-conclusive evidence, not truth. We discuss the difficulties involved in each case and argue that none of the options seems to accommodate the paradox in a satisfactory manner.
{"title":"The Liar Paradox: Between Evidence and Truth","authors":"J. B. Becker Arenhart, Ederson Safra Melo","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.005","url":null,"abstract":"Systems of paraconsistent logics violate the law of explosion: from contradictory premises not every formula follows. One of the philosophical options for interpreting the contradictions allowed as premises in these cases was put forward recently by Carnielli and Rodrigues, with their epistemic approach to paraconsistent logics. In a nutshell, the plan consists in interpreting the contradictions in epistemic terms, as indicating the presence of non-conclusive evidence for both a proposition and its negation. Truth, in this approach, is consistent and is dealt with by classical logic. In this paper we discuss the fate of the Liar paradox in this picture. While this is a paradox about truth, it cannot be accommodated by the classical part of the approach, due to trivialization problems. On the other hand, the paraconsistent part does not seem fit as well, due to the fact that its intended reading is in terms of non-conclusive evidence, not truth. We discuss the difficulties involved in each case and argue that none of the options seems to accommodate the paradox in a satisfactory manner.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42985927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Logic is usually presented as a tool of rational inquiry; however, many logicians in fact treat logic so that it does not serve us, but rather governs us – as rational beings we are subordinated to the logical laws we aspire to disclose. We denote the view that logic primarily serves us as logica serviens, while denoting the thesis that it primarily governs our reasoning as logica dominans. We argue that treating logic as logica dominans is misguided, for it leads to the idea of a “genuine” logic within a “genuine” language. Instead of this, we offer a naturalistic picture, according to which the only languages that exist are the natural languages and the artificial languages logicians have built. There is, we argue, no language beyond these, especially none that would be a wholesome vehicle of reasoning like the natural languages and yet be transparently rigorous like the artificial ones. Logic is a matter of using the artificial languages as idealized models of the natural ones, whereby we pinpoint the laws of logic by means of zooming in on a reflective equilibrium.
{"title":"Logica Dominans vs. Logica Serviens","authors":"Jaroslav Peregrin, V. Svoboda","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.004","url":null,"abstract":"Logic is usually presented as a tool of rational inquiry; however, many logicians in fact treat logic so that it does not serve us, but rather governs us – as rational beings we are subordinated to the logical laws we aspire to disclose. We denote the view that logic primarily serves us as logica serviens, while denoting the thesis that it primarily governs our reasoning as logica dominans. We argue that treating logic as logica dominans is misguided, for it leads to the idea of a “genuine” logic within a “genuine” language. Instead of this, we offer a naturalistic picture, according to which the only languages that exist are the natural languages and the artificial languages logicians have built. There is, we argue, no language beyond these, especially none that would be a wholesome vehicle of reasoning like the natural languages and yet be transparently rigorous like the artificial ones. Logic is a matter of using the artificial languages as idealized models of the natural ones, whereby we pinpoint the laws of logic by means of zooming in on a reflective equilibrium.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43391696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Here, we discuss logical, philosophical and technical problems associated to relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. The first step is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. We discuss this problem on the example of different languages. Second, we address some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications to non-classical logics, particularly to connexive logics. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, and its application to philosophy of science, language and pragmatics.
{"title":"Applications of Relating Semantics","authors":"Tomasz Jarmużek, F. Paoli","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.002","url":null,"abstract":"Here, we discuss logical, philosophical and technical problems associated to relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. The first step is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. We discuss this problem on the example of different languages. Second, we address some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications to non-classical logics, particularly to connexive logics. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, and its application to philosophy of science, language and pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49372895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the paper a generalised method for obtaining an adequate axiomatic system for any relating logic expressed in the language with Boolean connectives and relating implication (BLRI), determined by the limited positive relational properties is studied. The method of defining axiomatic systems for logics of a given type is called an algorithm since the analysis allows for any logic determined by the limited positive relational properties to define the adequate axiomatic system automatically, step-by-step. We prove in the paper that the algorithm really works and we show how it can be applied to BLRI.
{"title":"Axiomatization of BLRI Determined by Limited Positive Relational Properties","authors":"Tomasz Jarmużek, Mateusz Klonowski","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.003","url":null,"abstract":"In the paper a generalised method for obtaining an adequate axiomatic system for any relating logic expressed in the language with Boolean connectives and relating implication (BLRI), determined by the limited positive relational properties is studied. The method of defining axiomatic systems for logics of a given type is called an algorithm since the analysis allows for any logic determined by the limited positive relational properties to define the adequate axiomatic system automatically, step-by-step. We prove in the paper that the algorithm really works and we show how it can be applied to BLRI.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49503017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is commonplace to formalize propositions involving essential properties of objects in a language containing modal operators and quantifiers. Assuming David Lewis’s counterpart theory as a semantic framework for quantified modal logic, I will show that certain statements discussed in the metaphysics of modality de re, such as the sufficiency condition for essential properties, cannot be faithfully formalized. A natural modification of Lewis’s translation scheme seems to be an obvious solution but is not acceptable for various reasons. Consequently, the only safe way to express some intuitions regarding essential properties is to use directly the language of counterpart theory without modal operators.
{"title":"Counterparts, Essences and Quantified Modal Logic","authors":"T. Bigaj","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.001","url":null,"abstract":"It is commonplace to formalize propositions involving essential properties of objects in a language containing modal operators and quantifiers. Assuming David Lewis’s counterpart theory as a semantic framework for quantified modal logic, I will show that certain statements discussed in the metaphysics of modality de re, such as the sufficiency condition for essential properties, cannot be faithfully formalized. A natural modification of Lewis’s translation scheme seems to be an obvious solution but is not acceptable for various reasons. Consequently, the only safe way to express some intuitions regarding essential properties is to use directly the language of counterpart theory without modal operators.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44156984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Here, we discuss historical, philosophical and technical problems associated with relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. First, Section 1 is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. Second, we address the history of relating semantics and some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, particularly whether the direct incorporation of the relation into the language of relating logic is needed. The starting point for our considerations presented here is the 1st Workshop On Relating Logic and the selected papers for this issue.
{"title":"Relating Logic and Relating Semantics. History, Philosophical Applications and Some of Technical Problems","authors":"Tomasz Jarmużek, F. Paoli","doi":"10.12775/llp.2021.025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2021.025","url":null,"abstract":"Here, we discuss historical, philosophical and technical problems associated with relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. First, Section 1 is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. Second, we address the history of relating semantics and some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, particularly whether the direct incorporation of the relation into the language of relating logic is needed. The starting point for our considerations presented here is the 1st Workshop On Relating Logic and the selected papers for this issue.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47657372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this paper is to explore the advantages deriving from the application of relating semantics in epistemic logic. As a first step, I will discuss two versions of relating semantics and how they can be differently exploited for studying modal and epistemic operators. Next, I consider several standard frameworks which are suitable for modelling knowledge and related notions, in both their implicit and their explicit form and present a simple strategy by virtue of which they can be associated with intuitive systems of relating logic. As a final step, I will focus on the logic of knowledge based on justification logic and show how relating semantics helps us to provide an elegant solution to some problems related to the standard interpretation of the explicit epistemic operators.
{"title":"Relating Semantics for Epistemic Logic","authors":"A. Giordani","doi":"10.12775/llp.2021.024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2021.024","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to explore the advantages deriving from the application of relating semantics in epistemic logic. As a first step, I will discuss two versions of relating semantics and how they can be differently exploited for studying modal and epistemic operators. Next, I consider several standard frameworks which are suitable for modelling knowledge and related notions, in both their implicit and their explicit form and present a simple strategy by virtue of which they can be associated with intuitive systems of relating logic. As a final step, I will focus on the logic of knowledge based on justification logic and show how relating semantics helps us to provide an elegant solution to some problems related to the standard interpretation of the explicit epistemic operators.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49479592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We provide a fine-grained analysis of notions of regret and responsibility (such as agent-regret and individual responsibility) in terms of a language of multimodal logic. This language undergoes a detailed semantic analysis via two sorts of models: (i) relating models, which are equipped with a relation of propositional pertinence, and (ii) synonymy models, which are equipped with a relation of propositional synonymy. We specify a class of strictly relating models and show that each synonymy model can be transformed into an equivalent strictly relating model. Moreover, we define an axiomatic system that captures the notion of validity in the class of all strictly relating models.
{"title":"Alternative Semantics for Normative Reasoning with an Application to Regret and Responsibility","authors":"Daniela Glavaničová, Matteo Pascucci","doi":"10.12775/llp.2021.023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2021.023","url":null,"abstract":"We provide a fine-grained analysis of notions of regret and responsibility (such as agent-regret and individual responsibility) in terms of a language of multimodal logic. This language undergoes a detailed semantic analysis via two sorts of models: (i) relating models, which are equipped with a relation of propositional pertinence, and (ii) synonymy models, which are equipped with a relation of propositional synonymy. We specify a class of strictly relating models and show that each synonymy model can be transformed into an equivalent strictly relating model. Moreover, we define an axiomatic system that captures the notion of validity in the class of all strictly relating models.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47526827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：