Logical gaps

Catarina Dutilh Novaes on why we should dig into the cosmopolitan roots of logic

The (higher-order) evidential significance of attention and trust—comments on Levy’s Bad Beliefs

The work was supported by the H2020 European Research Council [ERC-2017-CoG 771074].In Bad Beliefs, Levy presents a picture of belief-forming processes according to which, on most matters of significance, we defer to reliable sources by relying extensively on cultural and social cues. Levy conceptualizes the kind of evidence provided by socio-cultural environments as higher-order evidence. But his notion of higher-order evidence seems to differ from those available in the epistemological literature on higher-order evidence, and this calls for a reflection on how exactly social and cultural cues are/count as/provide higher-order evidence. In this paper, I draw on the three-tiered model of epistemic exchange that I have been developing recently, which highlights the centrality of relations of attention and trust in belief-forming processes, to explicate how social and cultural cues provide higher-order evidence. I also argue that Levy’s account fails to sufficiently address the issue of strategic actors who have incentives to pollute epistemic environments for their benefit, and more generally the power struggles, incentives, and competing interests that characterize human sociality. Levy’s attempted reduction of the political to the epistemic ultimately fails, but his account of social and cultural cues as higher-order evidence offers an insightful perspective on epistemic social structures.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

The enduring enigma of reason

In The Enigma of Reason, Mercier and Sperber (M&amp;S) present and defend their interactionist account of reason. In this piece, I discuss briefly the points of agreement between M&amp;S and myself and, more extensively, the points of disagreement, most of which pertain to details of the evolutionary components of their account. I discuss in particular the purported modular nature of reason; their account of myside bias as an optimum/adaptation; and the claim that reason thus construed must be an individual-level and not a group-level adaptation. In the final section, I offer brief considerations on an alternative account of reasoning, where the focus is on how sociocultural environments may tune the social production and evaluation of arguments.</p

Two types of refutation in philosophical argumentation

This research was generously supported by the European Research Council with grant ERC-2017-CoG 771074 for the project ‘The Social Epistemology of Argumentation’.In this paper, I highlight the significance of practices of refutation in philosophical inquiry, that is, practices of showing that a claim, person or theory is wrong. I present and contrast two prominent approaches to philosophical refutation: refutation in ancient Greek dialectic (elenchus), in its Socratic variant as described in Plato’s dialogues, and as described in Aristotle’s logical texts; and the practice of providing counterexamples to putative definitions familiar from twentieth century analytic philosophy, focusing on the so-called Gettier problem. Moreover, I discuss Lakatos’ method of proofs and refutations, as it offers insightful observations on the dynamics between arguments, refutations, and counterexamples. Overall, I argue that dialectic, in particular in its Socratic variant, is especially suitable for the philosophical purpose of questioning the obvious, as it invites reflection on one’s own doxastic commitments and on the tensions and inconsistencies within one’s set of beliefs. By contrast, the counterexample-based approach to philosophical refutation can give rise to philosophical theorizing that is overly focused on hairsplitting disputes, thus becoming alienated from the relevant human experiences. Insofar as philosophical inquiry treads the fine line between questioning the obvious while still seeking to say something significant about human experiences, perhaps a certain amount of what Lakatos describes as ‘monster-barring’—a rejection of overly fanciful, artificial putative counterexamples—has its place in philosophical argumentation.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Axiomatizations of arithmetic and the first-order/second-order divide

It is often remarked that first-order Peano Arithmetic is non-categorical but deductively well-behaved, while second-order Peano Arithmetic is categorical but deductively ill-behaved. This suggests that, when it comes to axiomatizations of mathematical theories, expressive power and deductive power may be orthogonal, mutually exclusive desiderata. In this paper, I turn to Hintikka’s (Philos Top 17(2):69–90, 1989) distinction between descriptive and deductive approaches in the foundations of mathematics to discuss the implications of this observation for the first-order logic versus second-order logic divide. The descriptive approach is illustrated by Dedekind’s ‘discovery’ of the need for second-order concepts to ensure categoricity in his axiomatization of arithmetic; the deductive approach is illustrated by Frege’s Begriffsschrift project. I argue that, rather than suggesting that any use of logic in the foundations of mathematics is doomed to failure given the impossibility of combining the descriptive approach with the deductive approach, what this apparent predicament in fact indicates is that the first-order versus second-order divide may be too crude to investigate what an adequate axiomatization of arithmetic should look like. I also conclude that, insofar as there are different, equally legitimate projects one may engage in when working on the foundations of mathematics, there is no such thing as the One True Logic for this purpose; different logical systems may be adequate for different projects

Who’s afraid of adversariality? Conflict and cooperation in argumentation

This work was supported by H2020 European Research Council [771074-SEA].Since at least the 1980s, the role of adversariality in argumentation has been extensively discussed within different domains. Prima facie, there seem to be two extreme positions on this issue: argumentation should (ideally at least) never be adversarial, as we should always aim for cooperative argumentative engagement; argumentation should be and in fact is always adversarial, given that adversariality (when suitably conceptualized) is an intrinsic property of argumentation. I here defend the view that specific instances of argumentation are (and should be) adversarial or cooperative to different degrees. What determines whether an argumentative situation should be primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative are contextual features and background conditions external to the argumentative situation itself, in particular the extent to which the parties involved have prior conflicting or else convergent interests. To further develop this claim, I consider three teloi that are frequently associated with argumentation: the epistemic telos, the consensus-building telos, and the conflict management telos. I start with a brief discussion of the concepts of adversariality, cooperation, and conflict in general. I then sketch the main lines of the debates in the recent literature on adversariality in argumentation. Next, I discuss the three teloi of argumentation listed above in turn, emphasizing the roles of adversariality and cooperation for each of them.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Carnapian explication and ameliorative analysis : a systematic comparison

A distinction often drawn is one between conservative versus revisionary conceptions of philosophical analysis with respect to commonsensical beliefs and intuitions. This paper offers a comparative investigation of two revisionary methods: Carnapian explication and ameliorative analysis as developed by S. Haslanger. It is argued that they have a number of common features, and in particular that they share a crucial political dimension: they both have the potential to serve as instrument for social reform. Indeed, they may produce improved versions of key concepts of everyday life, for example those pertaining to social categories such as gender and race (among others), which in turn may lead to social change. The systematic comparison of these two frameworks offered here, where similarities as well as differences are discussed, is likely to provide useful guidance to practitioners of both approaches, as it will highlight important aspects of each of them that tend to remain implicit and under-theorized in existing applications of these methodologies to specific questions.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Towards a Practice-based Philosophy of Logic: Formal Languages as a Case Study

Au cours des dernières décennies, les travaux portant sur les pratiques humaines réelles ont pris de l'importance dans différents domaines de la philosophie, sans pour autant atteindre une position dominante. À ce jour, ce type de tournant pratique n'a cependant pas encore pénétré la philosophie de la logique. En première partie, j'esquisse ce que serait (ou pourrait être) une philosophie de la logique centrée sur l'étude des pratiques, en insistant en particulier sur sa pertinence et sur la manière de la conduire. En deuxième partie, j'illustre cette approche centrée sur les pratiques au moyen d une étude de cas : le rôle joué par les langages formels en logique, en particulier dans les pratiques des logiciens. Ma thèse est que les langages formels jouent un rôle opératoire fondamental dans le travail des logiciens en tant que technologie pratique du crayon et du papier, génératrice de processus cognitifs - et qui plus spécifiquement vient contrebalancer certains de nos schémas cognitifs « spontanés » peu adéquats à la recherche en logique (ainsi que dans d'autres domaines). Cette thèse sera appuyée sur des données empiriques venant de la recherche en psychologie du raisonnement. Avec cette analyse j'espère montrer qu'une philosophie de la logique centrée sur l'étude des pratiques peut être fructueuse, en particulier si elle est complétée par les réflexions méthodologiques nécessaires.In different subfields of philosophy, focus on actual human practices has been an important (albeit still somewhat non-mainstream) approach in recent decades. But so far, no such practice-based turn has yet taken place within the philosophy of logic. In the first part of the paper, I delineate what a practice-based philosophy of logic would (could) look like, insisting in particular on why it can be relevant and how it is to be undertaken. In the second part, I illustrate the proposed practice-based approach by means of a case-study: the role played by formal languages in logic, in particular in the practices of logicians. I argue that formal languages play a fundamental operative role in the work of logicians, as a paper-and-pencil, hands-on technology triggering certain cognitive processes—more specifically, countering some of our more 'spontaneous' cognitive patterns which are not particularly suitable for research in logic (as well as in other fields). I substantiate these claims with empirical data from research in the psychology of reasoning. With this analysis, I hope to show that a practice-based philosophy of logic can be a fruitful enterprise, in particular if accompanied by much-needed methodological reflection