DOCSLIB.ORG

Of Formal Epistemology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Of Formal Epistemology FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References What is “Formal Epistemology”? Not sure, really. “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: I first heard the term from Sahotra Sarkar in 2003 <story>. Some Propaganda, and an Example It seems that it is quite a broad field, which includes: Ampliative inference (including inductive logic); Game theory and decision theory; Formal learning theory; Branden Fitelson Formal theories of coherence: Foundations of probability and statistics; Department of Philosophy Formal approaches to paradoxes of belief and/or action; Group in Logic and the Methodology of Science & Belief revision theory; Cognitive Sciences Core Faculty Causal modeling, causal discovery, causal learning. University of California–Berkeley I guess I think of it (nowadays) in even broader terms: Analytic (Western) philosophy which makes serious use of [email protected] (or does serious philosophy about) formal methods and is http://fitelson.org/ not analytic metaphysics. Or, perhaps more concisely: “Core”, non-metaphysics, involving formal methods. I want it to be an area (not called “logic”!), where logic and other formal methods are used, and non-apologetically! Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References The Formal Epistemology Workshops (FEW) have been The SEP has just replaced the (too narrow, and not taken organized by Sahotra Sarkar and me, since 2004. very seriously by mainstream philosophers) “Inductive Logic Berkeley, 2004. Mainly, probability and induction people. and Decision Theory” area with “Formal Epistemology”. Keynote: Pat Suppes. Austin, 2005. Mainly, causal modeling/learning people. Brian Skyrms, Jim Joyce, Alan Hájek, and I will be editing Keynote: Brian Skyrms. this area. We will be commissioning many new entries. Berkeley, 2006. A broader mixture of areas. If you have suggestions for new entries/contributors, please Keynote: Tim Williamson. let me know! This will help solidify FE’s place in philosophy. CMU, 5/31–6/3/07. Abstract deadline: End of this month! Invited Speakers (not confirmed): Isaac Levi, Joe Halpern, ?. Studia Logica is also changing its scope. Future Sites: Madison, Wisconsin (2008 or 2009). Your It’s broadening from being just a “Polish Logic Journal” to a University? If you’re interested in hosting one, let me know. journal where “Formal Philosophy” can be showcased. I prefer to think of FEW as a place where traditional and Several new editors are editing exciting special issues: formal epistemologists can meet and learn from each other Leitgeb: Psychologism in Logic (especially, with an eye toward inspiring graduate students). Douven & Horsten: Applied Logic in Philosophy of Science Please submit an abstract this month! Behounek & Keefe: Vagueness And, please encourage any graduate students you know Fitelson: Formal Epistemology (especially ones who like formal methods) to submit/attend I urge you to re-work your conception of Studia Logica, and (we have limited funds for graduate student travel). to consider submitting “Formal Philosophy” papers there! Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References Here is a “reductio” of classical deductive logic (this is naïve I’ll assume Harman is right about the “relevantist” argument. and oversimplified, because my emphasis today is CI L): Now, I will argue that Goodman’s “Grue” argument against (1) For all sets of statements X and all statements p, if X is (Carnapian) inductive logic fails for analogous reasons. inconsistent, then p is a logical consequence of X. For this, we need some background on Goodman, Hempel & (2) If an agent S’s belief set B entails a proposition p (and S Carnap. I’ll discuss Hempel, then Carnap, then Goodman. knows B p), then it would be reasonable for S to believe p. Hempelian inductive logic (confirmation theory) is based on î (3) Even if S knows their beliefs B are inconsistent (and, on this deductive entailment. The theoretical details aren’t important. basis, they also know B p, for any p), there are still some We just need 3 properties of Hempel’s confirmation relation: î p’s that it would be unreasonable for S to believe. (EQC) If E confirms H and E E0, then E0 confirms H. (4) Since (1)–(3) lead to absurdity, our initial assumption (1) ïî ∴ (NC) For all constants x and all (consistent) predicates φ and ψ: must have been false — reductio of the “explosion” rule (1). [φx & ψx\ confirms [( y)(φy ψy)\. Harman [9] would concede that (1)–(3) are inconsistent, and ∀ ⊃ (M) For all x, for all (consistent) φ and ψ, and all statements H: (as a result) that something is wrong with premises (1)–(3). If [φx\ confirms H, then [φx & ψx\ confirms H. But, he would reject the relevantists’ diagnosis that (1) must be rejected. I take it he’d say it’s (2) that is to blame here. These three properties are the only ones needed to ☞ (2) is a bridge principle linking entailment and inference. (2) reconstruct Goodman’s “Grue” argument against Hempel. Before giving a precise reconstruction of Goodman’s “Grue” is correct only for consistent B’s. If B is inconsistent, then argument, we’ll look at the essentials of Carnapian IL/CT. the correct response may be to reject an element of B. Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References Carnapian confirmation theory (as I will use the term today) The Requirement of Total Evidence. In the application of IL to a is based on probabilistic relevance, not entailment. given knowledge situation, the total evidence available must be As such, Carnap’s confirmation theory has only one of the 3 taken as a basis for determining the degree of confirmation. Hempelian properties: (EQC). It has neither (NC) nor (M) [4]. More precisely, we have the following bridge principle As we will see shortly, this allows Carnapian inductive-logic connecting confirmation and evidential support: (RTE) E evidentially supports H for S in iff E confirms H, to avoid the full brunt of Goodman’s “Grue” argument. C relative to K, where K is S’s total evidence in . More precisely, Carnapian IL is based on the following C explication of “inductive-logical support” (confirmation): Again, for Carnap, confirmation is relative to a “logical” E confirms H, relative to K iff Pr(H E & K) > Pr(H K), for probability function. But, this is irrelevant today. | | some “suitable” probability function Pr (or class thereof). The (RTE) has often been (implicitly) presupposed by Note: Carnap thought that “suitable for inductive-logic” Bayesian epistemologists (both subjective and objective). implied “logical”. But, Goodman’s argument against Carnapian IL does not depend on which Pr is used. However, as we will soon see, the (RTE) is dubious, and For Carnap, confirmation is a logical relation (akin to most modern Bayesians reject it for independent reasons. entailment). Like entailment, confirmation can be applied, ☞ Moreover, Goodman’s “Grue” argument relies more heavily but this requires epistemic bridge principles [akin to (2)]. on (RTE) than the relevantists’ argument relies on (2). This Carnap [1] discusses various bridge principles. The most is an interesting disanalogy not noted in the literature. well-known of these is the requirement of total evidence. Before reconstructing the argument, a brief “Grue” primer. Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References Proof of (‡) in Hempel's Theory of Confirmation Let Gx x is green, Ox x is examined prior to t, and Ex Ö Ö x is an emerald. Goodman introduces a predicate “Grue” Ö x x is grue Ox Gx. ( x)(Ex Gx) ( x)[Ex (Ox Gx)] G Ö Ö ≡ Consider the following two universal generalizations ∀ ⊃ ∀ ⊃ ≡ (H1) All emeralds are green. [( x)(Ex Gx)] ∀ ⊃ (H2) All emeralds are grue. [( x)[Ex (Ox Gx)]] (NC) ∀ ⊃ ≡ And, consider the following instantial evidential statement ( ) Ea & Oa & Ga E Ea & Ga Ea & (Oa Ga) Hempel’s confirmation theory [(EQC) & (NC) & (M)] entails: ↑ ≡ ( ) confirms H1, and confirms H2. † E E As a result, his theory entails the following weaker claim (M) ( ) confirms H1 if and only if confirms H2. ‡ E E What about Carnapian theory? Does it entail even ( )? ‡ (Ea & Ga) & Oa (Ea & (Oa Ga)) & Oa ☞ Interestingly, the answer is NO! There are some K/Pr’s ⇑ ≡ relative to which confirms H1 but disconfirms H2. E E In this sesne, Hempel was an easier target for Goodman (EQC) than Carnap (Goodman targets Carnap in a footnote). Next, a counterexample to ( ), then Goodman’s argument. ‡ Ea & Oa & Ga ! Branden Fitelson “Survey” of Formal Epistemology: Some Propaganda, and an Example fitelson.org = E FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References FE Propaganda A Reductio of CDL? Hempel Carnap Goodman The RTE References Following I.J. Good [7], we can construct the following There is just one more ingredient in Goodman’s argument: The agent S who is assessing the evidential support that counterexample to ( ) for probabilistic relevance theories of E ‡ provides for H1 vs H2 in a Goodmanian “grue” context confirmation (like Carnap’s).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Address
    Empowering Philosophy Christia Mercer COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Presidential Address delivered at the one hundred sixteenth Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Philadelphia, PA, on January 10, 2020. The main goal of my presidential address in January 2020 was to show that philosophy’s past offers a means to empower its present. I hoped to encourage colleagues to make the philosophy we teach and practice more inclusive (both textually and topically) and to adopt a more public- facing engagement with our discipline. As I add these introductory remarks to my January lecture, it is June 2020 and the need to empower philosophy has never seemed more urgent. We’ve witnessed both the tragic death of George Floyd and the popular uprising of a diverse group of Americans in response to the ongoing violence against Black lives. Many white Americans—and many philosophers—have begun to realize that their inattentiveness to matters of diversity and inclusivity must now be seen as more than mere negligence. Recent demonstrations frequently contain signs that make the point succinctly: “Silence is violence.” A central claim of my January lecture was that philosophy’s status quo is no longer tenable. Even before the pandemic slashed university budgets and staff, our employers were cutting philosophy programs, enrollments were shrinking, and jobs were increasingly hard to find. Despite energetic attempts on the part of many of our colleagues to promote a more inclusive approach to our research and teaching, the depressing truth remains:
    [Show full text]
  • The Open Handbook of Formal Epistemology
    THEOPENHANDBOOKOFFORMALEPISTEMOLOGY Richard Pettigrew &Jonathan Weisberg,Eds. THEOPENHANDBOOKOFFORMAL EPISTEMOLOGY Richard Pettigrew &Jonathan Weisberg,Eds. Published open access by PhilPapers, 2019 All entries copyright © their respective authors and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS R. A. Briggs Stanford University Michael Caie University of Toronto Kenny Easwaran Texas A&M University Konstantin Genin University of Toronto Franz Huber University of Toronto Jason Konek University of Bristol Hanti Lin University of California, Davis Anna Mahtani London School of Economics Johanna Thoma London School of Economics Michael G. Titelbaum University of Wisconsin, Madison Sylvia Wenmackers Katholieke Universiteit Leuven iii For our teachers Overall, and ultimately, mathematical methods are necessary for philosophical progress. — Hannes Leitgeb There is no mathematical substitute for philosophy. — Saul Kripke PREFACE In formal epistemology, we use mathematical methods to explore the questions of epistemology and rational choice. What can we know? What should we believe and how strongly? How should we act based on our beliefs and values? We begin by modelling phenomena like knowledge, belief, and desire using mathematical machinery, just as a biologist might model the fluc- tuations of a pair of competing populations, or a physicist might model the turbulence of a fluid passing through a small aperture. Then, we ex- plore, discover, and justify the laws governing those phenomena, using the precision that mathematical machinery affords. For example, we might represent a person by the strengths of their beliefs, and we might measure these using real numbers, which we call credences. Having done this, we might ask what the norms are that govern that person when we represent them in that way.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemology Formalized
    Philosophical Review Epistemology Formalized Sarah Moss University of Michigan As we often tell our undergraduates, epistemology is the study of knowl- edge. Given just this simple definition, ‘formal epistemology’ seems like a misnomer for the philosophical program inspired by Thomas Bayes and developed in the twentieth century by Ramsey (1926), de Finetti ([1937] 1993), Jeffrey (1983), and others. Bayesians articulate constraints on rational credences: synchronic constraints on what credences you may have, and diachronic constraints on how your credences must evolve. Like traditional epistemologists, Bayesians are concerned with norms governing your doxastic state. But in modeling your doxastic state, Bayes- ians do not represent what full beliefs you have.1 And so they do not have the resources to talk about which of those beliefs constitute knowledge. This paper develops a formal extension of traditional episte- mology for which ‘epistemology’ is not a misnomer.I accept the traditional claim that beliefs can constitute knowledge. But I argue for an apparently radical thesis about the doxastic states that Bayesians care about: some of these states can also constitute knowledge. For example, suppose you are playing an ordinary poker game, and you have just been dealt some mid- dling cards face down. Your justifiedly low credence that you have been Thanks to Dave Chalmers, Branden Fitelson, Allan Gibbard, John Hawthorne, Jim Joyce, Ted Sider, Jason Stanley, Seth Yalcin, and the Michigan Crop Circle for helpful comments, as well as audiences at the University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, Rutgers Univer- sity, University of St Andrews, Syracuse University, Yale University, the 2011 Orange Beach Epistemology Workshop, and the 2011 Formal Epistemology Workshop.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth and Justification in Knowledge Representation ⋆
    Truth and Justification in Knowledge Representation ? Andrei Rodin1;2[0000−0002−3541−8867] and Serge Kovalyov3[0000−0001−5707−5730] 1 Institute of Philosophy RAS, 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation 2 HSE, 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation [email protected] https://www.hse.ru/org/persons/218712080 3 ICS RAS, 65 Profsoyuznaya street, Moscow 117997, Russian Federation [email protected] https://www.ipu.ru/node/16660 Abstract. While the traditional philosophical epistemology stresses the importance of distinguishing knowledge from true beliefs, the formalisa- tion of this distinction with standard logical means turns out to be prob- lematic. In Knowledge Representation (KR) as a Computer Science disci- pline this crucial distinction is largely neglected. A practical consequence of this neglect is that the existing KR systems store and communicate knowledge that cannot be verified and justified by users of these systems without external means. Information obtained from such systems does not qualify as knowledge in the sense of philosophical epistemology. Recent advances in the research area at the crossroad of the compu- tational mathematical logic, formal epistemology and computer science open new perspectives for an effective computational realisation of jus- tificatory procedures in KR. After exposing the problem of justification in logic, epistemology and KR, we sketch a novel framework for rep- resenting knowledge along with relevant justificatory procedures, which is based on the Homotopy Type theory (HoTT). This formal framework supports representation of both propositional knowledge, aka knowledge- that, and non-propositional knowledge, aka knowledge-how or procedu- ral knowledge. The default proof-theoretic semantics of HoTT allows for combining the two sorts of represented knowledge at the formal level by interpreting all permissible constructions as justification terms (wit- nesses) of associated propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2015 Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science Kamili Posey Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1097 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE PROJECT OF MAPPING SCIENCE BY KAMILI POSEY A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York. 2015 © 2015 KAMILI POSEY All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Nikolas Pappas ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Executive Officer Samir Chopra ______________________________________________ Linda Alcoff ______________________________________________ Robert Sinclair ______________________________________________ Supervisory Committee THE
    [Show full text]
  • Carnap on Empirical Significance
    Carnap on Empirical Significance Sebastian Lutz∗ Preprint: 2014–04–30 Abstract Carnap’s search for a criterion of empirical significance is usually con- sidered a failure. I argue that the results from two out of his three different approaches are at the very least problematic, but that one approach led to success. Carnap’s criterion of translatability into logical syntax is too vague to allow definite results. His criteria for terms—introducibility by reduction sentences and his criterion from “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts”—are almost trivial and have no clear relation to the empirical significance of sentences. However, his criteria for sentences— translatability, verifiability, falsifiability, confirmability—are usable, and under assumption of the Carnap sentence, verifiability, falsifiability, and translatability become equivalent. The price for the Carnap sentence approach is that metaphysics cannot always be shown to be non-significant. Keywords: empirical significance; cognitive significance; meaningfulness; Carnap; logical empiricism; Ramsey sentence; Carnap sentence; verifiabil- ity; falsifiability; testability; translatability Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Informal Translatability 3 3 Europe 6 3.1 Criteria for Sentences............................. 6 3.2 Criteria for Terms............................... 15 ∗Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. se- [email protected]. A previous version was presented in 2013 at the workshop Carnap on Logic at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, some aspects were presented in 2013 at the work- shop Formal Epistemology and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism at the University of Texas at Austin and in 2012 at the Groningen/Munich Summer School Formal Methods in Philosophy. I thank the audiences for helpful comments and discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyticity, Necessity and Belief Aspects of Two-Dimensional Semantics
    !"# #$%"" &'( ( )#"% * +, %- ( * %. ( %/* %0 * ( +, %. % +, % %0 ( 1 2 % ( %/ %+ ( ( %/ ( %/ ( ( 1 ( ( ( % "# 344%%4 253333 #6#787 /0.' 9'# 86' 8" /0.' 9'# 86' (#"8'# Analyticity, Necessity and Belief Aspects of two-dimensional semantics Eric Johannesson c Eric Johannesson, Stockholm 2017 ISBN print 978-91-7649-776-0 ISBN PDF 978-91-7649-777-7 Printed by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2017 Distributor: Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University Cover photo: the water at Petite Terre, Guadeloupe 2016 Contents Acknowledgments v 1 Introduction 1 2 Modal logic 7 2.1Introduction.......................... 7 2.2Basicmodallogic....................... 13 2.3Non-denotingterms..................... 21 2.4Chaptersummary...................... 23 3 Two-dimensionalism 25 3.1Introduction.......................... 25 3.2Basictemporallogic..................... 27 3.3 Adding the now operator.................. 29 3.4Addingtheactualityoperator................ 32 3.5 Descriptivism ......................... 34 3.6Theanalytic/syntheticdistinction............. 40 3.7 Descriptivist 2D-semantics .................. 42 3.8 Causal descriptivism ..................... 49 3.9Meta-semantictwo-dimensionalism............. 50 3.10Epistemictwo-dimensionalism................ 54
    [Show full text]
  • X-Phi and Carnapian Explication
    Erkenn (2015) 80:381–402 DOI 10.1007/s10670-014-9648-3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE X-Phi and Carnapian Explication Joshua Shepherd • James Justus Received: 16 September 2013 / Accepted: 23 May 2014 / Published online: 14 June 2014 Ó The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The rise of experimental philosophy (x-phi) has placed metaphilo- sophical questions, particularly those concerning concepts, at the center of philo- sophical attention. X-phi offers empirically rigorous methods for identifying conceptual content, but what exactly it contributes towards evaluating conceptual content remains unclear. We show how x-phi complements Rudolf Carnap’s underappreciated methodology for concept determination, explication. This clarifies and extends x-phi’s positive philosophical import, and also exhibits explication’s broad appeal. But there is a potential problem: Carnap’s account of explication was limited to empirical and logical concepts, but many concepts of interest to philos- ophers (experimental and otherwise) are essentially normative. With formal epis- temology as a case study, we show how x-phi assisted explication can apply to normative domains. 1 Introduction Identifying and evaluating conceptual content is at the core of philosophical practice. Concepts are indispensable constituents of arguments and theories, and conceptual judgments often motivate or undermine the development of both. Moreover, subtle disagreements about conceptual content often underlie much J. Shepherd (&) Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, University of Oxford, 16-17 St. Ebbes Street, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK e-mail: [email protected] J. Justus Department of Philosophy, Florida State University, 151 Dodd Hall, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1500, USA 123 382 J.
    [Show full text]
  • 'On Certainty' and Formal Epistemology
    ‘On Certainty’ and Formal Epistemology MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Moritz M. B¨aumel (born 14.09.1986 in Munich) under the supervision of Dr. Sonja Smets and Prof. Dr. Martin Stokhof, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: June 23rd, 2015 Dr. Maria Aloni (Chair) Dr. Sonja Smets (Supervisor) Prof. Dr. Martin Stokhof (Supervisor) Prof. Dr. Franz Berto Prof. Dr. Michiel van Lambalgen Dr. Bryan Renne i Abstract We look at Wittgenstein’s epistemological work On Certainty from the point of view of formal epistemology. Different interpretations of the work are looked at and important aspects of them are worked out. We take probability theory as a basis and interpret probabilities in terms of betting quotients, i.e. as a basis for action, and define certitude as probability 1. On top of this we define such notions as belief, doubt and knowledge in the spirit of On Certainty, following work done by A. Baltag. We proceed by looking at ways of (i) extending this system to a multi- agent system, (ii) outfitting it with an internal perspective and (iii) dynamics. We also look at game-theoretic approaches. The merits of the work will be discussed, as well as shortcomings and future work to be done. ii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my logic teachers who have sent me on this journey: (in order of appearance) Dr. Behboud, Dr. Centrone, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Logically Formalized Axiomatic Epistemology System + C And
    mathematics Article A Logically Formalized Axiomatic Epistemology System S + C and Philosophical Grounding Mathematics as a Self-Sufficing System Vladimir Olegovich Lobovikov Laboratory for Applied System Investigations, Ural Federal University, 620075 Yekaterinburg, Russia; [email protected] Abstract: The subject matter of this research is Kant’s apriorism underlying Hilbert’s formalism in the philosophical grounding of mathematics as a self-sufficing system. The research aim is the invention of such a logically formalized axiomatic epistemology system, in which it is possible to construct formal deductive inferences of formulae—modeling the formalism ideal of Hilbert—from the assumption of Kant’s apriorism in relation to mathematical knowledge. The research method is hypothetical–deductive (axiomatic). The research results and their scientific novelty are based on a logically formalized axiomatic system of epistemology called S + C, constructed here for the first time. In comparison with the already published formal epistemology systems X and S, some of the axiom schemes here are generalized in S + C, and a new symbol is included in the object-language alphabet of S + C, namely, the symbol representing the perfection modality, C: “it is consistent that ... ”. The meaning of this modality is defined by the system of axiom schemes of S + C. A deductive proof of the consistency of S + C is submitted. For the first time, by means of S + C, it is deductively demonstrated that, from the conjunction of S + C and either the first or second version of Gödel’s Citation: Lobovikov, V.O. A theorem of incompleteness of a formal arithmetic system, the formal arithmetic investigated by Logically Formalized Axiomatic Gödel is a representation of an empirical knowledge system.
    [Show full text]
  • On Newton's (Anti)-Cartesianism
    Formal Epistemology – the Future Synthesis Ladislav Kvasz, Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences Logic as a philosophical discipline originated in ancient Greece, at about the same time as mathematics was constituted as a deductive science. From ancient times two logical systems have survived – the Aristotelian syllogistic logic and the Stoic propositional logic. It took almost two thousand years, until in the works of Boole, Frege and Peano logic was turned into a formal discipline. The resulting synthesis, which was created by Whitehead and Russell, has brought a remarkable unification of the ideas of these authors. It seems that epistemology is recently undergoing formalization similar to the one occurring in logic in the 19th century. Epistemology as a philosophical discipline was established during the 17th and 18th century under the influence of Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant, at about the same time as physics was constituted as an empirical science. Since the days of the founders of epistemology sufficient time has elapsed so that the conversion of epistemology into a formal discipline could start. It is likely that, as in the case of logic, also in epistemology, the resulting theory will be a synthesis of multiple streams, and today it is probably not possible to do more than to outline the direction in which their synthesis can be expected. In the process of transformation of logic into a formal discipline we can distinguish two phases. The first phase, initiated by Boole, consisted in the transition from the naturalistic Millian understanding of logic to an algebraic calculus. This phase is known under the name algebra of logic and culminated in the three-volume Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik written by Schroeder.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposal for the Theory of Synthetic System Knowledge
    Article Sympérasmology: A Proposal for the Theory of Synthetic System Knowledge Imre Horváth Cyber-Physical Systems Group, Department of Sustainable Design Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628CE Delft, The Netherlands; [email protected] Received: 3 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 5 November 2020 Abstract: Owing to the results of research in system science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive engineering, engineered systems are becoming more and more powered by knowledge. Complementing common-sense andscientificknowledge,systemknowledgeismaturingintoacrucialproductiveasset. However, an overall theory of the knowledge of intellectualized systems does not exist. Some researchers suggest that time has come to establish a philosophically underpinned theoretical framework. This motion is seconded by the on-going intelligence revolution, in which artificial intelligence becomes a productive power, enabler of smart systems, and a strong transformer of the social life. The goal of this paper is to propose a skeleton of the needed generic theory of system knowledge (and a possible new branch of philosophical studies). The major assumption is that a significant part of the synthetic system knowledge (SSK) is “sympérasma”, that is, knowledge conjectured, inferred, constructed, or otherwise derived during the operation of systems. This part will become even more dominant in the future. Starting out from the above term, the paper suggests calling this theory “sympérasmology”. Some specific domains of “sympérasmological” studies, such as (i) manifestations of SSK, (ii) mechanisms of generating SSK, (iii) dependability of SSK, (iv) operational power of SSK, (v) composability of SSK, and (vi) advancement of SSK, are identified. It is understood that the essence and status of SSK cannot be investigated without considering the related cognitive processes and technological enablers.
    [Show full text]