Lorenz Demey

In this article, we present a new logical framework to think about surprise. This research does not just aim to better understand, model and predict human behaviour, but also attempts to provide tools for implementing artificial agents. Moreover, these artificial agents should then also be able to reap the same epistemic benefits from surprise as humans do. We start by discussing the dominant literature regarding propositional surprise and explore its shortcomings. These shortcomings are of both an empirical and a conceptual nature. Next, we propose a philosophical solution to the problems that ail these systems, based on the notion of issue of epistemic interest. Finally, we give a formal framework to think about surprise. More specifically, we develop a probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic that succeeds at formalizing the relevant philosophical concepts. This will be done through an issue management system grounded in topology. As an added bonus, the additional expressive power allows us to capture a richer variety of scenarios, and it also enables a more careful analysis of said scenarios.

In logic, Aristotelian diagrams are almost always assumed to be closed under negation, and are thus highly symmetric in nature. In linguistics, by contrast, these diagrams are used to study lexicalization, which is notoriously not closed under negation, thus yielding more asymmetric diagrams. This paper studies the interplay between logical symmetry and linguistic asymmetry in Aristotelian diagrams. I discuss two major symmetric Aristotelian diagrams, viz. the square and the hexagon of opposition, and show how linguistic considerations yield various asymmetric versions of these diagrams. I then discuss a pentagon of opposition, which occupies an uneasy position between the square and the hexagon. Although this pentagon belongs neither to the symmetric realm of logic nor to the asymmetric realm of linguistics, it occurs several times in the literature. The oldest known occurrence can be found in the cosmological work of the 14th-century author Nicole Oresme.

This paper studies John Buridan's octagons of opposition for the de re modal propositions and the propositions of unusual construction. Both Buridan himself and the secondary literature have emphasized the strong similarities between these two octagons (as well as a third one, for propositions with oblique terms). In this paper, I argue that the interconnection between both octagons is more subtle than has previously been thought: if we move beyond the Aristotelian relations, and also take Boolean considerations into account, then the strong analogy between Buridan's octagons starts to break down. These differences in Boolean structure can already be discerned within the octagons themselves; on a more abstract level, they lead to these two octagons having different degrees of Boolean complexity (i.e. Boolean closures of different sizes). These results are obtained by means of bitstring analysis, which is one of the key tools from contemporary logical geometry. Finally, I argue that this historical investigation is directly relevant for the theoretical framework of logical geometry, and discuss how it helps us to address certain open questions in this framework.

Several authors have recently studied Aristotelian diagrams for various metatheoretical notions from logic, such as tautology, satisfiability, and the Aristotelian relations themselves. However, all these metalogical Aristotelian diagrams focus on the semantic (model-theoretical) perspective on logical consequence, thus ignoring the complementary, and equally important, syntactic (proof-theoretical) perspective. In this paper, I propose an explanation for this discrepancy, by arguing that the metalogical square of opposition for semantic consequence exhibits a natural analogy to the well-known square of opposition for the categorical statements from syllogistics, but that this analogy breaks down once we move from semantic to syntactic consequence. I then show that despite this difficulty, one can indeed construct metalogical Aristotelian diagrams from a syntactic perspective, which have their own, equally elegant characterization in terms of the categorical statements. Finally, I construct several metalogical Aristotelian diagrams that incorporate both semantic and syntactic consequence (and their interaction), and study how they are influenced by the underlying logical system’s soundness and/or completeness. All of this provides further support for the methodological/heuristic perspective on Aristotelian diagrams, which holds that the main use of these diagrams lies in facilitating analogies and comparisons between prima facie unrelated domains of investigation.

Burgess-Jackson has recently suggested that the debate between theism and atheism can be represented by means of a classical square of opposition. However, in light of the important role that the position of agnosticism plays in Burgess-Jackson’s analysis, it is quite surprising that this position is not represented in the proposed square of opposition. I therefore argue that the square of opposition should be extended to a slightly larger, more complex Aristotelian diagram, viz., a hexagon of opposition. Since this hexagon does represent the position of agnosticism, it arguably yields a more helpful representation of the theism/atheism debate. It would be naïve to presume that Aristotelian diagrams can, by themselves, lead to a comprehensive solution of debates as intricate as that between theism and atheism. Nevertheless, this paper aims to show that these diagrams — especially if they are chosen carefully — have an important methodological role to play, by systematically organizing and clarifying the debate.

This article describes the historical development of epistemic logic, focusing on the dynamic turn that has taken place in the last few decades. Although this dynamic turn was mainly motivated by technical considerations in computer science and game theory, it is argued that it can also be relevant from a more philosophical perspective: the application of dynamic epistemic logics to analyze prima facie static notions, theorems, etc. fits perfectly in a Wittgensteinian approach to philosophy as conceptual elucidation. Furthermore, it turns out that these conceptual elucidations often lead to a number of other advantages, such as a higher degree of empirical adequacy. In order to illustrate this line of argumentation, the system of public announcement logic is presented, and it is shown how this system can be used to analyze the psychological phenomenon of surprise in a conceptually and empirically fruitful way.

This article describes a specific pedagogical context for an advanced logic course and presents a strategy that might facilitate students’ transition from the object-theoretical to the metatheoretical perspective on logic. The pedagogical context consists of philosophy students who in general have had little training in logic, except for a thorough introduction to syllogistics. The teaching strategy tries to exploit this knowledge of syllogistics, by emphasizing the analogies between ideas from metalogic and ideas from syllogistics, such as existential import, the distinction between contradictories and contraries, and the square of opposition. This strategy helps to improve students’ understanding of metalogic, because it allows the students to integrate these new ideas with their previously acquired knowledge of syllogistics.

In the recent debate on future contingents and the nature of the future, authors such as G. A. Boyd, W. L. Craig, and E. Hess have made use of various logical notions, such as the Aristotelian relations of contradiction and contrariety, and the ‘open future square of opposition.’ My aim in this paper is not to enter into this philosophical debate itself, but rather to highlight, at a more abstract methodological level, the important role that Aristotelian diagrams can play in organizing and clarifying the debate. After providing a brief survey of the specific ways in which Boyd and Hess make use of Aristotelian relations and diagrams in the debate on the nature of the future, I argue that the position of open theism is best represented by means of a hexagon of opposition. Next, I show that on the classical theist account, this hexagon of opposition ‘collapses’ into a single pair of contradictory statements. This collapse from a hexagon into a pair has several aspects, which can all be seen as different manifestations of a single underlying change.

In order to elucidate his logical analysis of modal quantified propositions (e.g. ‘all men are necessarily mortal’), the 14th century philosopher John Buridan constructed a modal octagon of oppositions. In the present paper we study this modal octagon from the perspective of contemporary logical geometry. We argue that the modal octagon contains precisely six squares of opposition as subdiagrams, and classify these squares based on their logical properties. On a more abstract level, we show that Buridan’s modal octagon precisely captures the interaction between two classical squares of opposition, viz. one for the quantifiers and one for the modalities. Finally, we argue that several aspects of our contemporary formal analyses were already hinted at by Buridan himself.

Thomas Aquinas maintained that God foreknows future contingent events and that his foreknowledge does not entail that they are necessarily the case. More specifically, he stated that if God knows a future contingent event, this future contingent event will be necessarily the case de sensu composito, but not de sensu diviso. After emphasizing the unified nature of Aquinas’ notion of necessity, we propose an interpretation of his theses by restating them within the framework of non-normal modal logics. In this framework, the K-axiom does not hold, i.e. the necessity operator does not distribute over the material implication. Moreover, assuming that Aquinas rejected the K-axiom is not only consistent, but also leads to a logical framework that allows us to understand other theses maintained by the Doctor Angelicus. In particular, we argue that Aquinas’ remarks on the principle of non-contradiction rest on an impossible worlds semantics for non-normal modal logics.

The aim of this paper is to initiate a systematic exploration of the model theory of epistemic plausibility models (EPMs). There are two subtly different definitions in the literature: one by van Benthem and one by Baltag and Smets. Because van Benthem's notion is the most general, most of the paper is dedicated to this notion. We focus on the notion of bisimulation, and show that the most natural generalization of bisimulation to van Benthem-type EPMs fails. We then introduce parametrized bisimulations, and prove various bisimulationimplies- equivalence theorems, a Hennessy-Milner theorem, and several (un)definability results. We discuss the problems arising from the fact that these bisimulations are syntax-dependent (and thus not fully structural), and we present and compare two different ways of coping with this issue: adding a modality to the language, and putting extra constraints on the models. We argue that the most successful solution involves restricting to uniform and locally connected (van Benthem-type) EPMs: for this subclass the intuitively most natural notion of bisimulation and the technically sound notion coincide. Such EPMs turn out to correspond exactly with Baltag/Smets-type EPMs, which can be interpreted as constituting a methodological argument, favoring Baltag and Smets's definition of EPM over that of van Benthem.