You are hereGroups / Philosophy of Mathematics and Philosophy of Logic / Philosophy of Logic Workshop

Philosophy of Logic Workshop

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field_user::init() should be compatible with views_handler_field::init(&$view, $options) in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/modules/user/views_handler_field_user.inc on line 47.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field_node_new_comments::pre_render() should be compatible with views_handler_field::pre_render($values) in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/modules/comment/views_handler_field_node_new_comments.inc on line 100.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 744.
  • strict warning: Non-static method views_many_to_one_helper::option_definition() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument_many_to_one.inc on line 35.
  • strict warning: Non-static method views_many_to_one_helper::option_definition() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument_many_to_one.inc on line 35.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/gulliver/public_html/cogito/sites/default/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 159.

7 May 2012 15:00
7 May 2012 19:15
Europe/Rome

Workshop
Philosophy of Logic

Salvatore Florio
(Kansas state University, Birkbeck College, UCL)
Semantics and the Plural Conception of Reality

Julien Murzi
(University of Kent)
Classical denial in non-classical truth-theories

Luca Tranchini
(Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen)
How to Tarski a Dummett-Prawitz

Venue:
Sala Giacon, Facoltà di Filosofia, Università di Padova
P.zza Capitaniato 3, Padova.

***

ABSTRACTS

Salvatore Florio
Semantics and the Plural Conception of Reality

According to the singular conception of reality, there are objects and there are singular properties, that is, properties that are instantiated by objects separately. It has been argued that semantic considerations about plurals force us to embrace a plural conception of reality. On the plural conception of reality, there are plural properties — properties that are instantiated by many objects together — alongside singular ones. I propose and defend a novel semantic account of plurals which dispenses with plural properties and thus undermines the semantic argument in favor of the plural conception of reality.

Julien Murzi
Classical denial in non-classical truth-theories

Non-classical theories of negation are often coupled with quasi-classical theories of denial: even if negation fails to be Boolean or exclusive, denial doesn't: one may deny what's untrue, and one may not assert and deny the same proposition at the same time. We argue that this mismatch is more problematic than leading non-classical theorists---chiefly, Hartry Field and Graham Priest---have so far acknowledged. Non-classical theorists may not say under which conditions we may correctly deny things, nor can they, more generally, express the notion of correct deniability in their language.

Luca Tranchini
How to Tarski a Dummett-Prawitz

I due approcci semantici basati rispettivamente sulle nozioni di verità e di prova vengono (ancora una volta) messi a confronto. Anziché sottolineare le differenze tra i due, un analogia verrà sottolineata: in entrambi, al fine di poter specificare la nozione semantica centrale (sia essa quella di verità o di prova canonica) è necessario ricorrere ad una nozione semantica "ancillare" (in un caso a quella di soddisfacimento di una formula da parte di un'assegnazione di oggetti alle variabili, nell'altro a quella di argomento ipotetico).
Contrariamente a Tarski, che definisce la verità come soddisfacimento sotto tutte le assegnazioni, Dummett e Prawitz non definiscono dimostrabilità canonica in termini di quella ipotetica. Piuttosto, caratterizzano quest'ultima in termini della prima.
Un argomento verrà dato per rivedere l'approccio dimostrativo-teoretico in senso Tarskiano, ovvero per caratterizzare la nozione di prova tout court come caso limite di una nozione primitiva di prova sotto assunzioni. Il ruolo della nozione di conseguenza logica in questa prospettiva verrà brevemente discusso.

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

Events

« October 2019 »
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031

Search

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 7 guests online.