On the Logic of Belief and Propositional Quantification

We consider extending the modal logic KD45, commonly taken as the baseline system for belief, with propositional quantifiers that can be used to formalize natural language sentences such as “everything I believe is true” or “there is some-thing that I neither believe nor disbelieve.” Our main results are axiomatizations of the logics with propositional quantifiers of natural classes of complete Boolean algebras with an operator (BAOs) validating KD45. Among them is the class of complete, atomic, and completely multiplicative BAOs validating KD45. Hence, by duality, we also cover the usual method of adding propositional quantifiers to normal modal logics by considering their classes of Kripke frames. In addition, we obtain decidability for all the concrete logics we discuss

Evidence-Based Beliefs in Many-Valued Modal Logics

Rational agents, humans or otherwise, build their beliefs from evidence – a process which we call consolidation. But how should this process be carried out? In this thesis, we study a multi-agent logic of evidence and the question how agents should form beliefs in this logic. The main contributions of this thesis are twofold. First, we present and study a many-valued modal logic, and show how it can be suitable for modelling multi-agent scenarios where each agent has access to some evidence, which in turn can be processed into beliefs. This is a technical and practical contribution to many-valued modal logics. Second, we open new paths for research in the field of evidence logics: we show a new approach based on many-valued logics, we highlight the concept of consolidations and the importance of looking at their dynamic nature, and build a methodology based on rationality postulates to evaluate them

Logical models for bounded reasoners

This dissertation aims at the logical modelling of aspects of human reasoning, informed by facts on the bounds of human cognition. We break down this challenge into three parts. In Part I, we discuss the place of logical systems for knowledge and belief in the Rationality Debate and we argue for systems that formalize an alternative picture of rationality -- one wherein empirical facts have a key role (Chapter 2). In Part II, we design logical models that encode explicitly the deductive reasoning of a single bounded agent and the variety of processes underlying it. This is achieved through the introduction of a dynamic, resource-sensitive, impossible-worlds semantics (Chapter 3). We then show that this type of semantics can be combined with plausibility models (Chapter 4) and that it can be instrumental in modelling the logical aspects of System 1 (“fast”) and System 2 (“slow”) cognitive processes (Chapter 5). In Part III, we move from single- to multi-agent frameworks. This unfolds in three directions: (a) the formation of beliefs about others (e.g. due to observation, memory, and communication), (b) the manipulation of beliefs (e.g. via acts of reasoning about oneself and others), and (c) the effect of the above on group reasoning. These questions are addressed, respectively, in Chapters 6, 7, and 8. We finally discuss directions for future work and we reflect on the contribution of the thesis as a whole (Chapter 9)

Justification and the Knowledge-Connection

Peer reviewe

Three Essays in Intuitionistic Epistemology

We present three papers studying knowledge and its logic from an intuitionistic viewpoint. An Arithmetic Interpretation of Intuitionistic Verification Intuitionistic epistemic logic introduces an epistemic operator to intuitionistic logic which reflects the intended BHK semantics of intuitionism. The fundamental assumption concerning intuitionistic knowledge and belief is that it is the product of verification. The BHK interpretation of intuitionistic logic has a precise formulation in the Logic of Proofs and its arithmetical semantics. We show here that this interpretation can be extended to the notion of verification upon which intuitionistic knowledge is based. This provides the systems of intuitionistic epistemic logic extended by an epistemic operator based on verification with an arithmetical semantics too. This confirms the conception of verification incorporated in these systems reflects the BHK interpretation. Intuitionistic Verification and Modal Logics of Verification The systems of intuitionistic epistemic logic, IEL, can be regarded as logics of intuitionistic verification. The intuitionistic language, however, has expressive limitations. The classical modal language is more expressive, enabling us to formulate various classical principles which make explicit the relationship between intuitionistic verification and intuitionistic truth, implicit in the intuitionistic epistemic language. Within the framework of the arithmetic semantics for IEL we argue that attempting to base a general verificationism on the properties of intuitionistic verification, as characterised by IEL, yields a view of verification stronger than is warranted by its BHK reading. Intuitionistic Knowledge and Fallibilism Fallibilism is the view that knowledge need not guarantee the truth of the proposition known. In the context of a classical conception of truth fallibilism is incompatible with the truth condition on knowledge, i.e. that false propositions cannot be known. We argue that an intuitionistic approach to knowledge yields a view of knowledge which is both fallibilistic and preserves the truth condition. We consider some problems for the classical approach to fallibilism and argue that an intuitionistic approach also resolves them in a manner consonant with the motivation for fallibilism