DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemic Logic & Epistemology – Professor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epistemic Logic & Epistemology – Professor Epistemic Logic & Epistemology Professor Wesley Holliday Friday 12-2 UC Berkeley, Fall 2012 234 Moses Syllabus1 Description Once conceived as a single formal system, epistemic logic has become a general formal approach to the study of the structure of knowledge, its limits and possibilities, and its static and dynamic properties. Recently there has been a resurgence of interest in the relation between epistemic logic and epistemology. Some of the new applications of epistemic logic in epistemology go beyond the traditional limits of the logic of knowledge, either by modeling the dynamic process of knowledge acquisition or by modifying the representation of epistemic states to reflect different theories of knowledge. In this seminar, we will explore a number of topics at the intersection of epistemic logic and epistemology, centered around epistemic closure, higher-order knowledge, and paradoxes of knowability. Requirements { Due each Friday: précis of one of weekly readings. { Due at end of term: research paper of 15-20 pages. { Each participant presents the reading for one or more sessions. For some sessions, readings are classified as “primary” or “secondary” with the following meaning: complete all primary readings and as much of secondary readings as possible. Contact email: [email protected] | web: wesholliday.net | OHs: by appointment, 242 Moses Schedule Aug. 24 Course Overview Reading: Holliday 2012b. Recommended: Stalnaker 2006. Aug. 31 Skepticism and Closure Reading: Steiner 1979; Holliday 2012a. Sept. 7 Margins for Error I Reading: Williamson 1999; Gómez-Torrente 1997, §3; Williamson 1997, §2.III; Fara 2002. Sept. 14 Margins for Error II Primary reading: Égré 2008; Dokic and Égré 2009. Secondary reading: Bonnay and Égré 2009, 2011. Sept. 21 Margins for Error III Reading: Williamson 2011; Williamson 2012. 1The electronic version at philosophy.berkeley.edu/people/page/124 contains hyperlinks to readings and resources. 1/4 Sept. 28 The Surprise Exam in static epistemic logic Reading: Sorensen 1988, 253-255, 289-292, 317-320; McLelland and Chihara 1976. Oct. 5 The Surprise Exam in dynamic epistemic logic Reading: Gerbrandy 2007; Marcoci 2010, Ch. 3. Oct. 12 The Surprise Exam and Gödel’s 2nd incompleteness theorem Reading: Kritchman and Raz 2010. Oct. 19 The Knower Paradox Reading: Kaplan and Montague 1960; Anderson 1983. Oct. 26 The Knower Paradox and epistemic closure Primary reading: Maitzen 1998; Cross 2001. Secondary Reading: Uzquiano 2004; Cross 2004. Nov. 2 Two-Dimensional Modal Logic Primary reading: Davies and Humberstone 1980. Secondary reading: Davies 2004; Humberstone 2004. Nov. 9 Fitch’s Paradox and the actuality operator Primary reading: Edgington 1985; Rabinowicz and Segerberg 1994. Secondary reading: Chalmers 2011. Nov. 16 Fitch’s Paradox temporal analyses Reading: Burgess 2009; Proietti and Sandu 2010. Nov. 23 Fitch’s Paradox dynamic analyses Primary reading: van Benthem 2004; van Ditmarsch et al. 2011. Secondary reading: Fischer 2010. Nov. 30 Beyond Propositional Epistemic Logic Reading: Aloni 2005; Holliday and Perry 2012. Readings Maria Aloni. Individual Concepts in Modal Predicate Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34(1):1–64, 2005. C. Anthony Anderson. The Paradox of the Knower. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(6): 338–355, 1983. Denis Bonnay and Paul Égré. Inexact Knowledge with Introspection. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38:179–227, 2009. Denis Bonnay and Paul Égré. Knowing One’s Limits: An Analysis in Centered Dynamic Epistemic Logic. In Patrick Girard, Olivier Roy, and Mathieu Marion, editors, Dynamic Formal Epistemology, volume 351 of Synthese Library. Springer, 2011. John P. Burgess. Can Truth Out? In ?, pages 147–162. 2009. David J. Chalmers. Actuality and Knowability. Analysis, 71(3):411–419, 2011. 2/4 Charles B. Cross. The Paradox of the Knower without Epistemic Closure. Mind, 110(438): 319–333, 2001. Charles B. Cross. More on the Paradox of the Knower without Epistemic Closure. Mind, 113(449):109–114, 2004. Martin Davies. Reference, Contingency, and the Two-Dimensional Framework. Philosophi- cal Studies, 188:83–131, 2004. Martin Davies and Lloyd Humberstone. Two Notions of Necessity. Philosophical Studies, 38:1–30, 1980. Jérôme Dokic and Paul Égré. Margin for error and the transparency of knowledge. Synthese, 166:1–20, 2009. Dorothy Edgington. The Paradox of Knowability. Mind, 94(376):557–568, 1985. Paul Égré. Reliability, Margin for Error and Self-Knowledge. In Vincent F. Hendricks and Duncan Pritchard, editors, News Waves in Epistemology, pages 215–250. Oxford, 2008. Delia Graff Fara. An Anti-Epistemicist Consequence of Margin for Error Semantics for Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64(1):127–142, 2002. Originally published under the name “Delia Graff”. Martin Fischer. Some remarks on restricting the knowability principle. Synthese, 2010. DOI 10.1007/s11229-010-9833-0. Jelle Gerbrandy. The Surprise Examination in Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese, 155: 21–33, 2007. Mario Gómez-Torrente. Two Problems for an Epistemicist View of Vagueness. Philosophical Issues, 8:237–245, 1997. Wesley H. Holliday. Epistemic Closure and Epistemic Logic I: Relevant Alternatives and Subjunctivism. Manuscript, 2012a. Wesley H. Holliday. Epistemic Logic and Epistemology. In Sven Ove Hansson and Vincent F. Hendricks, editors, Handbook of Formal Philosophy. Springer, 2012b. Forthcoming. Wesley H. Holliday and John Perry. Roles, Rigidity, and Quantification in Epistemic Logic. In Alexandru Baltag and Sonja Smets, editors, Johan van Benthem: Logic & Information Dynamics, Trends in Logic: Outstanding Contributions. Springer, 2012. Forthcoming. Lloyd Humberstone. Two-Dimensional Adventures. Philosophical Studies, 188:17–65, 2004. David Kaplan and Richard Montague. A Paradox Regained. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1(3):79–90, 1960. Shira Kritchman and Ran Raz. The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness Theorem. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 57(11):1454– 1458, 2010. Stephen Maitzen. The Knower Paradox and Epistemic Closure. Synthese, 114(2):337–354, 1998. 3/4 Alexandru Marcoci. The Surprise Examination Paradox in Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2010. ILLC Master of Logic Thesis Series MoL-2010-18. James McLelland and Charles Chihara. The Surprise Examination Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4:71–89, 1976. Carlo Proietti and Gabriel Sandu. Fitch’s paradox and ceteris paribus modalities. Synthese, 173:75–87, 2010. Wlodek Rabinowicz and Krister Segerberg. Actual Truth, Possible Knowledge. Topoi, 13: 101–105, 1994. Roy Sorensen. Blindspots. Oxford, 1988. Robert Stalnaker. On Logics of Knowledge and Belief. Philosophical Studies, 128(1): 169–199, 2006. Mark Steiner. Cartesian Skepticism and Epistemic Logic. Analysis, 39:38–41, 1979. Gabriel Uzquiano. The Paradox of the Knower without Epistemic Closure? Mind, 113 (449):95–107, 2004. Johan van Benthem. What One May Come to Know. Analysis, 64(2):95–105, 2004. Hans van Ditmarsch, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Peter Iliev. Everything is Knowable – How to Get to Know Whether a Proposition is True. Theoria, 78(2):93–114, 2011. Timothy Williamson. Replies to Commentators. Philosophical Issues, 8:255–265, 1997. Timothy Williamson. Rational Failures of the KK Principle. In Cristina Bicchieri, Richard C. Jeffrey, and Brian Skyrms, editors, The Logic of Strategy, pages 101–118. Oxford, 1999. Timothy Williamson. Improbable Knowing. In Trent Dougherty, editor, Evidentialism and its Discontents, pages 147–164. Oxford, 2011. Timothy Williamson. Very Improbable Knowing. Manuscript, 2012. Other Resources Epistemic Logic For a historical survey of epistemic logic, see the “Epistemic Logic” entry in the Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 7. Modern epistemic logic began with Hintikka’s Knowledge and Belief (1962), which is still worth reading, as is Wolfgang Lenzen’s follow-up, Recent Work in Epistemic Logic (1978). In the late 80s and early 90s, there was a “rediscov- ery” of epistemic logic in computer science, leading to the textbooks Reasoning about Knowledge (1995) and Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science (1995); and in the late 90s, there was another rediscovery in game theory with Robert Aumann’s “Interactive Epistemology I: Knowledge” (1999). For discussions of the relation between epistemic logic and epistemology in the 21st century, see Vol. 128 (2006) of Philosophical Studies. Dynamic Epistemic Logic For textbooks on dynamic epistemic logic, see van Ditmarsch et al.’s Dynamic Epistemic Logic (2008) and van Benthem’s Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction (2011). 4/4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • To Appear in Synthese Probability and Proximity in Surprise
    Page 1 of 19 To appear in Synthese Probability and Proximity in Surprise Tomoji Shogenji1 Abstract This paper proposes an analysis of surprise formulated in terms of proximity to the truth, to replace the probabilistic account of surprise. It is common to link surprise to the low (prior) probability of the outcome. The idea seems sensible because an outcome with a low probability is unexpected, and an unexpected outcome often surprises us. However, the link between surprise and low probability is known to break down in some cases. There have been some attempts to modify the probabilistic account to deal with these cases, but they are still faced with problems. The new analysis of surprise I propose turns to accuracy (proximity to the truth) and identifies an unexpected degree of inaccuracy as reason for surprise. The shift from probability to proximity allows us to solve puzzles that strain the probabilistic account of surprise. Keywords Qualitative hypothesis ∙ Quantitative hypothesis ∙ Probabilistic hypothesis ∙ Inaccuracy ∙ Scoring rules ∙ Expected inaccuracy 1. Introduction This paper proposes an analysis of surprise formulated in terms of proximity to the truth, to replace the probabilistic account of surprise. It is common to link surprise to the low (prior) probability of the outcome.2 The idea seems sensible because an outcome with a low probability is unexpected, and an unexpected outcome often surprises us. However, the link between surprise and low probability is known to break down in some cases. There have been some attempts to modify the probabilistic account to deal with these cases, but as we shall see, they are still faced with problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel-Jahrbuch 2010 Hegel- Jahrbuch 2010
    Hegel-Jahrbuch 2010 Hegel- Jahrbuch 2010 Begründet von Wilhelm Raimund Beyer (f) Herausgegeben von Andreas Arndt Paul Cruysberghs Andrzej Przylebski in Verbindung mit Lu De Vos und Peter Jonkers Geist? Erster Teil Herausgegeben von Andreas Arndt Paul Cruysberghs Andrzej Przylebski in Verbindung mit Lu De Vos und Peter Jonkers Akademie Verlag Redaktionelle Mitarbeit: Veit Friemert Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-05-004638-9 © Akademie Verlag GmbH, Berlin 2010 Das eingesetzte Papier ist alterungsbeständig nach DIN/ISO 9706. Alle Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung in andere Sprachen, vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieses Buches darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form - durch Photokopie, Mikroverfilmung oder irgendein anderes Verfahren - reproduziert oder in eine von Maschinen, insbesondere von Datenver- arbeitungsmaschinen, verwendbare Sprache übertragen oder übersetzt werden. Lektorat: Mischka Dammaschke Satz: Veit Friemert, Berlin Einbandgestaltung: nach einem Entwurf von Günter Schorcht, Schildow Druck: MB Medienhaus Berlin Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany VORWORT Das vorliegende Hegel-Jahrbuch umfasst den ersten Teil der auf dem XXVII. Internationalen He- gel-Kongress der Internationalen Hegel-Gesellschaft e.V. 2008 in Leuven zum Thema »Geist?« gehaltenen Referate. Den Dank an alle Förderer und Helfer, die den Kongress ermöglicht und zu dessen Gelingen beigetragen haben, hat Paul Cruysberghs - der zusammen mit Lu de Vos und Peter Jonkers das örtliche Organisationskomitee bildete - in seiner im folgenden abgedruckten Eröff- nungsrede abgestattet; ihm schließt sich der übrige Vorstand mit einem besonderen Dank an Paul Cruysberghs an.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics
    Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics Hasen Khudairi June 20, 2017 c Hasen Khudairi 2017, 2020 All rights reserved. 1 Abstract This book concerns the foundations of epistemic modality. I examine the nature of epistemic modality, when the modal operator is interpreted as con- cerning both apriority and conceivability, as well as states of knowledge and belief. The book demonstrates how epistemic modality relates to the compu- tational theory of mind; metaphysical modality; deontic modality; the types of mathematical modality; to the epistemic status of undecidable proposi- tions and abstraction principles in the philosophy of mathematics; to the apriori-aposteriori distinction; to the modal profile of rational propositional intuition; and to the types of intention, when the latter is interpreted as a modal mental state. Each essay is informed by either epistemic logic, modal and cylindric algebra or coalgebra, intensional semantics or hyperin- tensional semantics. The book’s original contributions include theories of: (i) epistemic modal algebras and coalgebras; (ii) cognitivism about epistemic modality; (iii) two-dimensional truthmaker semantics, and interpretations thereof; (iv) the ground-theoretic ontology of consciousness; (v) fixed-points in vagueness; (vi) the modal foundations of mathematical platonism; (vii) a solution to the Julius Caesar problem based on metaphysical definitions availing of notions of ground and essence; (viii) the application of epistemic two-dimensional semantics to the epistemology of mathematics; and (ix) a modal logic for rational intuition. I develop, further, a novel approach to conditions of self-knowledge in the setting of the modal µ-calculus, as well as novel epistemicist solutions to Curry’s and the liar paradoxes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Culture on Mindreading
    Edinburgh Research Explorer The impact of culture on mindreading Citation for published version: Lavelle, JS 2019, 'The impact of culture on mindreading', Synthese, vol. N/A, pp. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02466-5 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1007/s11229-019-02466-5 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Synthese General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 Synthese https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02466-5 FOLK PSYCHOLOGY: PLURALISTIC APPROACHES The impact of culture on mindreading Jane Suilin Lavelle1 Received: 8 July 2019 / Accepted: 4 November 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract The role of culture in shaping folk psychology and mindreading has been neglected in the philosophical literature. This paper shows that there are significant cultural dif- ferences in how psychological states are understood and used by (1) drawing on Spaulding’s recent distinction between the ‘goals’ and ‘methods’ of mindreading (2018) to argue that the relations between these methods vary across cultures; and (2) arguing that differences in folk psychology cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the cognitive architecture that facilitates our understanding of psychological states.
    [Show full text]
  • Pluralistic Perspectives on Logic: an Introduction
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Publications Philosophy & Religious Studies 1-2020 Pluralistic Perspectives on Logic: An Introduction Colin R. Caret Teresa Kouri Kissel Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/philosophy_fac_pubs Part of the Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Original Publication Citation Caret, C. R., & Kissel, T. K. Pluralistic perspectives on logic: An introduction. Synthese, 1-12. doi:10.1007/ s11229-019-02525-x This Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy & Religious Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Synthese https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02525-x SI: PLURALISTIC PERSPECTIVES ON LOGIC Pluralistic perspectives on logic: an introduction Colin R. Caret1 · Teresa Kouri Kissel2 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020 1 Logic and logics Logical pluralism is the view that there are distinct, but equally good logics. Recent years have witnessed a sharp upswing of interest in this view, resulting in an impres- sive literature. We only expect this trend to continue in the future. More than one commentator has, however, expressed exasperation at the view: what can it mean to be a pluralist about logic of all things? [see, e.g., Eklund (2017); Goddu (2002); Keefe (2014)]. In this introduction, we aim to set out the basic pluralist position, identify some issues over which pluralists disagree amongst themselves, and highlight the topics at the heart of the ongoing debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Ahrenbachseth.Pdf (618.5Kb)
    DYNAMIC AGENT SAFETY LOGIC: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Seth Ahrenbach Dr. Rohit Chadha, Thesis Supervisor DECEMBER 2019 The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled: DYNAMIC AGENT SAFETY LOGIC: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS presented by Seth Ahrenbach, a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Dr. Rohit Chadha Dr. Alwyn Goodloe Dr. William Harrison Dr. Paul Weirich ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the support and encouragement of many people, I would not have pro- duced this work. So you can blame them for any mistakes. Producing this thesis spanned about three years, during which time I started working full time as a software developer, moved twice, and had a wonderful daughter. Without my wife's love, support, and encouragement, I would have given up. Maggie was always there to center me and help nudge me along, and I am grateful to have her in my life. I wanted to accomplish something difficult in order to set a positive example for our daughter, Ellie. I am convinced Ellie wanted this, too. She had no control over whether I would accomplish it, but she could certainly make it more difficult! She made sure it was a very positive example that I set. Much of Chapters Three and Five benefited from her very vocal criticism, and I dedicate them to her.
    [Show full text]
  • Chimpanzee Mind Reading: Don't Stop Believing
    Received: 18 April 2016 Revised: 22 September 2016 Accepted: 24 October 2016 DOI 10.1111/phc3.12394 ARTICLE Chimpanzee mind reading: Don't stop believing Kristin Andrews York University, Canada Abstract Correspondence “ ” Kristin Andrews, Department of Philosophy, Since the question Do chimpanzees have a theory of mind? was York University, Toronto, Canada. raised in 1978, scientists have attempted to answer it, and Email: [email protected] philosophers have attempted to clarify what the question means and whether it has been, or could be, answered. Mindreading (a term used mostly by philosophers) or theory of mind (a term preferred by scientists) refers to the ability to attribute mental states to other individuals. Some versions of the question focus on whether chimpanzees engage in belief reasoning or can think about false belief, and chimpanzees have been given nonverbal versions of the false belief moved‐object task (also known as the Sally–Anne task). Other versions of the question focus on whether chimpanzees understand what others can see, and chimpanzees can pass those tests. From this data, some claim that chimpanzees know something about perceptions, but nothing about belief. Others claim that chimpanzees do not understand belief or perceptions, because the data fails to overcome the “logical problem,” and permits an alternative, non‐mentalistic interpretation. I will argue that neither view is warranted. Belief reasoning in chimpanzees has focused on examining false belief in a moved object scenario, but has largely ignored other functions of belief. The first part of the paper is an argument for how to best understand belief reasoning and offers suggestion for future investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Epistemic Logic II: Logics of Information Change
    Dynamic Epistemic Logic II: Logics of Information Change Eric Pacuit April 11, 2012 Abstract Dynamic epistemic logic, broadly conceived, is the study of logics of information change. Inference, communication and observation are typical examples of informative events which have been subjected to a logical anal- ysis. This article will introduce and critically examine a number of different logical systems that have been used to reason about the knowledge and be- liefs of a group of agents during the course of a social interaction or rational inquiry. The goal here is not to be comprehensive, but rather to discuss the key conceptual and technical issues that drive much of the research in this area. 1 Modeling Informative Events The logical frameworks introduced in the first paper all describe the (rational) agents' knowledge and belief at a fixed moment in time. This is only the begin- ning of a general logical analysis of rational inquiry and social interaction. A comprehensive logical framework must also describe how a rational agent's knowl- edge and belief change over time. The general point is that how the agent(s) come to know or believe that some proposition p is true is as important (or, perhaps, more important) than the fact that the agent(s) knows or believes that p is the case (cf. the discussion in van Benthem, 2009, Section 2.5). In this article, I will introduce various dynamic extensions of the static logics of knowledge and belief introduced earlier. This is a well-developed research area attempting to balance sophisticated logical analysis with philosophical insight | see van Ditmarsch et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Inadequacy of Modal Logic in Quantum Settings
    Inadequacy of Modal Logic in Quantum Settings Nuriya Nurgalieva Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland [email protected] Lídia del Rio Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland [email protected] We test the principles of classical modal logic in fully quantum settings. Modal logic models our reasoning in multi-agent problems, and allows us to solve puzzles like the muddy children paradox. The Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment highlighted fundamental problems in applying classical reasoning when quantum agents are involved; we take it as a guiding example to test the axioms of classical modal logic. In doing so, we find a problem in the original formulation of the Frauchiger- Renner theorem: a missing assumption about unitarity of evolution is necessary to derive a con- tradiction and prove the theorem. Adding this assumption clarifies how different interpretations of quantum theory fit in, i.e., which properties they violate. Finally, we show how most of the axioms of classical modal logic break down in quantum settings, and attempt to generalize them. Namely, we introduce constructions of trust and context, which highlight the importance of an exact structure of trust relations between agents. We propose a challenge to the community: to find conditions for the validity of trust relations, strong enough to exorcise the paradox and weak enough to still recover classical logic. Draco said out loud, “I notice that I am confused.” Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality... Draco was confused. Therefore, something he believed was fiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Epistemic Logic I: Modeling Knowledge and Belief
    Dynamic Epistemic Logic I: Modeling Knowledge and Belief Eric Pacuit April 19, 2012 Abstract Dynamic epistemic logic, broadly conceived, is the study of logics of information change. In this first paper, I introduce the basic logical systems for reasoning about the knowledge and beliefs of a group of agents. 1 Introduction The first to propose a (modal) logic of knowledge and belief was Jaako Hintikka in his seminal book Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions, published in 1962. However, the general study of formal semantics for knowledge and belief (and their logic) really began to flourish in the 1990s with fundamental contributions from computer scientists (Fagin et al., 1995; Meyer and van der Hoek, 1995) and game theorists (Aumann, 1999; Bonanno and Battigalli, 1999). As a result, the field of Epistemic Logic developed into an interdisciplinary area focused on explicating epistemic issues in, for example, game theory (Brandenburger, 2007), economics (Samuelson, 2004), computer security (Halpern and Pucella, 2003; Ramanujam and Suresh, 2005), distributed and multiagent systems (Halpern and Moses, 1990; van der Hoek and Wooldridge, 2003), and the social sciences (Parikh, 2002; Gintis, 2009). Nonetheless, the field has not loss touch with its philosophical roots: See (Holliday, 2012; Egr´e, 2011; Stalnaker, 2006; van Benthem, 2006; Sorensen, 2002) for logical analyses aimed at mainstream epistemology. Inspired, in part, by issues in these different “application” areas, a rich reper- toire of epistemic and doxastic attitudes have been identified and analyzed in the epistemic logic literature. The challenge for a logician is not to argue that one particular account of belief or knowledge is primary, but, rather, to explore the logical space of definitions and identify interesting relationships between the dif- ferent notions.
    [Show full text]
  • An Algebraic Approach to Dynamic Epistemic Logic
    Proc. 23rd Int. Workshop on Description Logics (DL2010), CEUR-WS 573, Waterloo, Canada, 2010. An Algebraic Approach to Dynamic Epistemic Logic Prakash Panangaden1, Caitlin Phillips1, Doina Precup1, and Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh2 1 Reasoning and Learning Lab, School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada 2 Computing Laboratory, Oxford University, Oxford, UK {prakash,cphill, dprecup}@cs.mcgill.ca & [email protected] Abstract. Dynamic epistemic logic plays a key role in reasoning about multi-agent systems. Past approaches to dynamic epistemic logic have typically been focused on actions whose primary purpose is to communi- cate information from one agent to another. These actions are unable to alter the valuation of any proposition within the system. In fields such as security, it is easy to imagine situations in which this sort of action would be insufficient. We expand the algebraic framework presented by M. Sadrzadeh [14] to include both communication actions and dynamic actions that change the state of the system. Furthermore, we propose a new modality that captures both epistemic and propositional changes resulting from the agents’ actions. 1 Introduction As the applications for epistemic logic and dynamic epistemic logic grow more numerous and more diverse, we are faced with the challenge of developing logics rich enough to model these applications but also flexible enough that they are not limited to one particular application. Although it is unlikely that a one-size-fits- all logic will work for every application, logics that incorporate more algebraic structure make it easier to model a variety of situations without having to be too explicit in the description of the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Curriculum Vitae
    PAGE 1 Office of Academic Affairs DAVIS BAIRD Clark University, 950 Main St., Worcester, MA 01610 (508) 793-7673, FAX: 793-8834, [email protected] Education 1978-1981 Ph.D. Stanford University, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language and Logic 1977-1978 A.M. Stanford University, Philosophy of Science 1972-1976 A.B. Brandeis University, Mathematics and Philosophy, cum laude, with High Honors in Philosophy Academic Positions 2010- Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Clark University 2010- Professor of Philosophy, Clark University 2010- Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Dean Emeritus, University of South Carolina 2005-2010 Dean, South Carolina Honors College, University of South Carolina 2004-2010 Louise Fry Scudder Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina 1992-2005 Chair, Department of Philosophy 2001-2004 Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina 1988-2001 Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina 1999-2000 Senior Fellow, Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology, M.I.T. 1982-1988 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina 1981-1982 Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Arizona 1981 Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University Professional Service 2011- Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science 2013- Consulting Editor, NanoEthics 2013- Editorial Board, Acta Baltica Historae et Philosophiae Sciantiarum 2003- Grant reviewer
    [Show full text]