Anti-exceptionalists about logic maintain that it is continuous with the empirical sciences. Taking anti-exceptionalism for granted, we argue that traditional approaches to explanation are inadequate in the case of logic. We argue that Andrea Woody's functional analysis of explanation is a better fit with logical practice and accounts better for the explanatory role of logical theories.

Logics—that is to say logical systems—are generally conceived of as describing the logical forms of arguments as well as endorsing cer- tain principles or rules of inference specified in terms of these forms. From this perspective, a correct logic is a system which captures only (and perhaps all) of the correct principles, and good—i.e. logical— reasoning is reasoning which at the level of logical form conforms to the principles of a correct logic. In contrast, as logical particularists we reject the (...) idea that logical validity is a property of logical forms or schema, and instead take validity to be a property of particular in- ferences. In this paper we describe and defend this radically different approach to validity, and explore the particularist understanding of the relationship between logical systems and logical reasoning. (shrink)

The orthodox view of logic takes for granted the central importance of logical principles. Logic, and thus logical reasoning, is to be understood as a system of rules or principles with universal application. Let us call this orthodox view logical generalism. In this paper we argue that logical generalism, whether monist or pluralist, is wrong. We then outline an account of logical consequence in the absence of general logical principles, which we call logical particularism.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Dana Scott introduced a kind of generalization (or perhaps simplification would be a better description) of the notion of inference, familiar from Gentzen, in which one may consider multiple conclusions rather than single formulas. Scott used this idea to good effect in a number of projects including the axiomatization of many-valued logics (of various kinds) and a reconsideration of the motivation of C.I. Lewis. Since he left the subject it has been vigorously prosecuted (...) by a number of authors under the heading of abstract entailment relations where it has found an important role in both algebra and theoretical computer science. In this essay we go back to the beginnings, as presented by Scott, in order to make some comments about Scott’s cut rule, and show how much of Scott’s main result may be applied to the case of single-conclusion logic. (shrink)

Disputes about logic are commonplace and undeniable. It is sometimes argued that these disputes are not genuine disagreements, but are rather merely verbal ones. Are advocates of different logics simply talking past each other? In this paper we argue that pluralists (and anyone who sees competing logics as genuine rivals), should reject the claim that real disagreement requires competing logics to assign the same meaning to logical connectives, or the same logical form to arguments. Along the way we argue that (...) ascriptions of logical form, as well as connective meaning, are always theory-relative. (shrink)

. This paper examines the underpinnings of the preservationist approach to characterizing inference relations. Starting with a critique of the ‘truth-preservation’ semantic paradigm, we discuss the merits of characterizing an inference relation in terms of preserving consistency. Finally we turn our attention to the generalization of consistency introduced in the early work of Jennings and Schotch, namely the concept of level.

In this paper Gillman Payette looks at various structural properties of the underlying logic X, and ascertains if these properties will hold of the forcing relation based on X. The structural properties are those that do not deal with particular connectives directly. These properties include the structural rules of inference, compactness, and compositionality among others. The presentation of the logic X is carried out in the style of algebraic logic; thus, a description of the resulting ‘forcing algebras’ is given. The (...) paper concludes with a discussion of first-order classical forcing as a particular instance of these properties. (shrink)

Papers... "selected from a larger number of contributions most of them based on talks presented at the First World Congress on the Square of Opposition organized in Montreux in June 2007"--Preface, p. 12.

This paper presents proofs of completeness and decidability of a non-temporal fragment of an Xstit logic. This shows a distinction between the non-temporal fragments of Xstit logic and regular stit logic since the latter is undecidable. The proof of decidability is via the finite model property. The finite model property is shown to hold by constructing a filtration. However, the set that is used to filter the models isn’t simply closed under subformulas, it has more complex closure conditions. The filtration (...) set is akin to the Fischer–Ladner closure of a set used to show completeness and decidability of propositional dynamic logic. (shrink)

Traditional epistemic and doxastic logics cannot deal with inconsistent beliefs nor do they represent the evidence an agent possesses. So-called ‘evidence logics’ have been introduced to deal with both of those issues. The semantics of these logics are based on neighbourhood or hypergraph frames. The neighbourhoods of a world represent the basic evidence available to an agent. On one view, beliefs supported by evidence are propositions derived from all maximally consistent collections evidence. An alternative concept of beliefs takes them to (...) be propositions derivable from consistent partitions of one’s inconsistent evidence; this is known as Schotch-Jennings Forcing. This paper develops a modal logic based on the hypergraph semantics to represent Schotch-Jennings Forcing. The modal language includes an operator U(φ1,…,φn;ψ)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$U(\varphi _1, \ldots, \varphi _n;\psi )$$\end{document} which is similar to one introduced in Instantial Neighbourhood Logic. It is of variable arity and the input formulas enjoy distinct roles. The U operator expresses that all evidence at a particular world that supports ψ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\psi $$\end{document} can be supported by at least one of the φi\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\varphi _i$$\end{document}s. U can then be used to express that all the evidence available can be unified by the finite set of formulas φ1,…,φn\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\varphi _1,\ldots, \varphi _n$$\end{document} if ψ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\psi $$\end{document} is taken to be ⊤\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\top $$\end{document}. Future developments will then use that semantics as the basis for a doxastic logic akin to evidence logics. (shrink)

The concept of compactness is a necessary condition of any system that is going to call itself a finitary method of proof. However, it can also apply to predicates of sets of formulas in general and in that manner it can be used in relation to level functions, a flavor of measure functions. In what follows we will tie these concepts of measure and compactness together and expand some concepts which appear in d'Entremont's master's thesis, "Inference and Level." We will (...) also provide some applications of the concept of level to the "preservationist" program of paraconsistent logic. We apply the finite level compactness theorem in this paper to get a Lindenbaum flavor extension lemma and a maximal "forcibility" theorem. Each of these is based on an abstract deductive system X which satisfies minimal conditions of inference and has generalizations of 'and' and 'not' as logical words. (shrink)

This book features mathematical and formal philosophers’ efforts to understand philosophical questions using mathematical techniques. It offers a collection of works from leading researchers in the area, who discuss some of the most fascinating ways formal methods are now being applied. It covers topics such as: the uses of probable and statistical reasoning, rational choice theory, reasoning in the environmental sciences, reasoning about laws and changes of rules, and reasoning about collective decision procedures as well as about action. Utilizing mathematical (...) techniques has been very fruitful in the traditional domains of formal philosophy – logic, philosophy of mathematics and metaphysics – while formal philosophy is simultaneously branching out into other areas in philosophy and the social sciences. These areas particularly include ethics, political science, and the methodology of the natural and social sciences. Reasoning about legal rules, collective decision-making procedures, and rational choices are of interest to all those engaged in legal theory, political science and economics. Statistical reasoning is also of interest to political scientists and economists. (shrink)

In my dissertation A Study in the Logic of Institutions I develop a logical system for reasoning about institutions and their consistency. Since my dissertation is a work in logic rather than one in socio-political philosophy, I don’t defend a particular theory of institutions. Instead, I did as Yogi Bera suggested and simply took the fork in the road. A well-developed account of institutions is given by John Searle in ; and. His account bases all social reality on language, and (...) I use his account to provide a logic for institutional norms. Briefly, social reality is constructed via language by making our intentions clear to one another. And we do this via speech acts. There is one particular type of speech act that is important to institutions: declarations. Declarations bring about new social objects and create social states of affairs. It is via declarations that social institutions are created. In so far as groups recognize an institution sustaining/making authority, that authority has the ability to generate new institutional rules via declarations. According to Vanderveken ; see also Searle and Vanderveken, speech acts have a logic. That is, performing one speech act can satisfy the conditions of having performed another speech act. A priest declaring a baby baptized will also make it so that the priest has asserted that the baby is baptized, for instance. More importantly, certain declarations will result in the declarations of some of the logical consequences of the initial declarations. I characterize the set of speech acts that stand in that relationship and develop a logical system around that characterization. The formal framework incorporates action and permits representations of complex institution-dependent relations, e.g., rights and duties. I further develop this formalism to investigate the notion of normative consistency. I show how to represent at least a minimal conception of normative inconsistency within the formal framework, and characterize its properties. I conclude by comparing my work to that of others. (shrink)

In this paper we look at two classic methods of deriving consequences from inconsistent premises: Rescher-Manor and Schotch-Jennings. The overall goal of the project is to confine the method of drawing consequences from inconsistent sets to those that do not require reference to any information outside of very general facts about the set of premises. Methods in belief revision often require imposing assumptions on premises, e.g., which are the important premises, how the premises relate in non-logical ways. Such assumptions enable (...) one to select a reasonable collection of formulas from all the formulas of the language. Basic versions of the classic methods only use logical relations between the premises. We compare and criticize each of the classic views with an eye to combining the views to get the most out of inconsistent premises. We do this in a way that will respect the theoretical grounding of each view while meeting our other restrictions. (shrink)

In this paper we take inspiration from a couple of authors on how to think about normative (in)consistency, and then show how to conceive of normative inconsistency in an xstit framework. One view on normative inconsistency is from von Wright, and the other from Hamblin. These two accounts share a conception of normative inconsistency, but their formal frameworks are very different. We propose a way to get the best of both views on normative inconsistency by using an xstit framework, mixed (...) with a version of Anderson’s reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. We consider variations on those ideas and relate it to a work of Ruth Barcan Marcus. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of van Hees and Braham’s conception of causal responsibility in terms of NESS-conditions in formal models of collective action; NESS means ‘Necessary Element of a Sufficient Set’. In particular, the paper looks at their dictatorship result which arises from imposing uniformresponsibility on game forms which are augmented with a probabilistic component. Analogs for uniform NESS-responsibility are formulated within Belnap et al.’s stit models of agency—for both the instantaneous and past-looking versions. (...) In the case of instantaneous stit theory, NESS-responsibility has dstit as a special case, and the probabilistic component is unnecessary for deriving a full dictatorship result. For pastlooking agency, NESS-responsibility has astit as a special case, but uniformity, while not dictatorial, is shown to have a counterintuitive necessary condition: busy choosers. (shrink)

The purpose of this brief note is to prove a limitative theorem for a generalization of the deduction theorem. I discuss the relationship between the deduction theorem and rules of inference. Often when the deduction theorem is claimed to fail, particularly in the case of normal modal logics, it is the result of a confusion over what the deduction theorem is trying to show. The classic deduction theorem is trying to show that all so-called ‘derivable rules’ can be encoded into (...) the object language using the material conditional. The deduction theorem can be generalized in the sense that one can attempt to encode all types of rules into the object language. When a rule is encoded in this way I say that it is reflected in the object language. What I show, however, is that certain logics which reflect a certain kind of rule must be trivial. Therefore, my generalization of the deduction theorem does fail where the classic deduction theorem didn’t. (shrink)

In this essay Gillman Payette and Peter Schotch present an account of the key notions of level and forcing in much greater generality than has been managed in any of the early publications. In terms of this level of generality the hoary notion that correct inference is truth-preserving is carefully examined and found wanting. The authors suggest that consistency preservation is a far more natural approach, and one that can, furthermore, characterize an inference relation. But an examination of the usual (...) account of consistency reveals problems that, in general, can be corrected by means of an auxiliary notion of inference (forcing) which relies upon a kind of generalization of consistency, called level. Preservation of the latter is shown to be another of the properties which characterize a logic and forcing is shown to preserve it. The essay ends with a sketch of a result which locates forcing among all possible level-preserving inference relations. (shrink)

In the fourteenth century, Duns Scotus suggested that the proper analysis of modality required not just moments of time but also “moments of nature”. In making this suggestion, he broke with an influential view first presented by Diodorus in the early Hellenistic period, and might even be said to have been the inventor of “possible worlds”. In this essay we take Scotus’ suggestion seriously devising first a double-index logic and then introducing the temporal order. Finally, using the temporal order, we (...) define a modal order. This allows us to present modal logic without the usual interpretive questions arising concerning the relation called variously ‘accessibility’, ‘alternativeness’, and, ‘relative possibility.’ The system in which this analysis is done is one of those which have come to be called a hybrid logic. (shrink)