JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC最新文献

Bilateral proof systems, which provide rules for both affirming and denying sentences, have been prominent in the development of proof-theoretic semantics for classical logic in recent years. However, such systems provide a substantial amount of freedom in the formulation of the rules, and, as a result, a number of different sets of rules have been put forward as definitive of the meanings of the classical connectives. In this paper, I argue that a single general schema for bilateral proof rules has a reasonable claim to inferentially articulating the core meaning of all of the classical connectives. I propose this schema in the context of a bilateral sequent calculus in which each connective is given exactly two rules: a rule for affirmation and a rule for denial. Positive and negative rules for all of the classical connectives are given by a single rule schema, harmony between these positive and negative rules is established at the schematic level by a pair of elimination theorems, and the truth-conditions for all of the classical connectives are read off at once from the schema itself.

This paper develops the idea that valid arguments are equivalent to true conditionals by combining Kripke’s theory of truth with the evidential account of conditionals offered by Crupi and Iacona. As will be shown, in a first-order language that contains a naïve truth predicate and a suitable conditional, one can define a validity predicate in accordance with the thesis that the inference from a conjunction of premises to a conclusion is valid when the corresponding conditional is true. The validity predicate so defined significantly increases our expressive resources and provides a coherent formal treatment of paradoxical arguments.

Traditional definitions of common ground in terms of iterative de re attitudes do not apply to conversations where at least one conversational participant is not acquainted with the other(s). I propose and compare two potential refinements of traditional definitions based on Abelard’s distinction between generality in sensu composito and in sensu diviso.

We present a logic of evidence that reduces agents’ epistemic idealisations by combining classical propositional logic with substructural modal logic for formulas in the scope of epistemic modalities. To this aim, we provide a neighborhood semantics of evidence, which provides a modal extension of Fine’s semantics for relevant propositional logic. Possible worlds semantics for classical propositional logic is then obtained by defining the set of possible worlds as a special subset of information states in Fine’s semantics. Finally, we prove that evidence is a hyperintensional and non-prime notion in our logic, and provide a sound and complete axiomatisation of our evidence logic.

The truth conditions of sentences with indexicals like ‘I’ and ‘here’ cannot be given directly, but only relative to a context of utterance. Something similar applies to questions: depending on the semantic framework, they are given truth conditions relative to an actual world, or support conditions instead of truth conditions. Two-dimensional semantics can capture the meaning of indexicals and shed light on notions like apriority, necessity and context-sensitivity. However, its scope is limited to statements, while indexicals also occur in questions. Moreover, notions like apriority, necessity and context-sensitivity can also apply to questions. To capture these facts, the frameworks that have been proposed to account for questions need refinement. Two-dimensionality can be incorporated in question semantics in several ways. This paper argues that the correct way is to introduce support conditions at the level of characters, and develops a two-dimensional variant of both proposition-set approaches and relational approaches to question semantics.

The paper is devoted to the analysis of two seminal definitions of points within the region-based framework: one by Whitehead (1929) and the other by Grzegorczyk (Synthese, 12(2-3), 228-235 1960). Relying on the work of Biacino & Gerla (Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 37(3), 431-439 1996), we improve their results, solve some open problems concerning the mutual relationship between Whitehead and Grzegorczyk points, and put forward open problems for future investigation.

We define a concept of truthmaker function, and prove the functional completeness, w.r.t. truthmaker functions in this sense, of a set of four-valued functions corresponding to standard connectives of the system of relevance logic known as First-Degree Entailment or Belnap–Dunn logic.

An algebraic characterisation is given of the Mares-Goldblatt semantics for quantified extensions of relevant and modal logics. Some features of this more general semantic framework are investigated, and the relations to some recent work in algebraic semantics for quantified extensions of non-classical logics are considered.

Examples of hypotheses about the number of planets are frequently used to introduce the topic of (actual) truthlikeness but never analyzed in detail. In this paper we first deal with the truthlikeness of singular quantity hypotheses, with reference to several ‘the number of planets’ examples, such as ‘The number of planets is 10 versus 10 billion (instead of 8).’ For the relevant ratio scale of quantities we will propose two, strongly related, normalized metrics, the proportional metric and the (simplest and hence favorite) fractional metric, to express e.g. the distance from a hypothetical number to the true number of planets, i.e. the distance between quantities. We argue that they are, in view of the examples and plausible conditions of adequacy, much more appropriate, than the standardly suggested, normalized absolute difference, metric.

Next we deal with disjunctive hypotheses, such as ‘The number of planets is between 7 and 10 inclusive is much more truthlike than between 1 and 10 billion inclusive.’ We compare three (clusters of) general ways of dealing with such hypotheses, one from Ilkka Niiniluoto, one from Pavel Tichý and Graham Oddie, and a trio of ways from Theo Kuipers. Using primarily the fractional metric, we conclude that all five measures can be used for expressing the distance of disjunctive hypotheses from the actual truth, that all of them have their strong and weak points, but that (the combined) one of the trio is, in view of principle and practical considerations, the most plausible measure.

There is a curious bifurcation in the literature on ground and its logic. On the one hand, there has been a great deal of work that presumes that logical complexity invariably yields grounding. So, for instance, it is widely presumed that any fact stated by a true conjunction is grounded in those stated by its conjuncts, that any fact stated by a true disjunction is grounded in that stated by any of its true disjuncts, and that any fact stated by a true double negation is grounded in that stated by the doubly-negated formula. This commitment is encapsulated in the system GG axiomatized and semantically characterized by [deRosset and Fine, 2023] (following [Fine, 2012]). On the other hand, there has been a great deal of important formal work on “flatter” theories of ground, yielding logics very different from GG [Correia, 2010] [Fine, 2016, 2017b]. For instance, these theories identify the fact stated by a self-conjunction ((phi wedge phi )) with that stated by its conjunct (phi ). Since, in these systems, no fact grounds itself, the “flatter” theories are inconsistent with the principles of GG. This bifurcation raises the question of whether there is a single notion of ground suited to fulfill the philosophical ambitions of grounding enthusiasts. There is, at present, no unified semantic framework employing a single conception of ground for simultaneously characterizing both GG and the “flatter” approaches. This paper fills this gap by specifying such a framework and demonstrating its adequacy.