Federico Pailos

This book is the first to present a comprehensive investigation of the technical features of the metainferential logics developed in the last years, with their most relevant results and applications. It provides some new paths to define and investigate metainferential logics and offers a thorough study of the semantics and the proof-theories of this new and exciting variety of families of logics. This volume examines the hierarchies of metainferential logics and gives a general and systematic theory of them, and of the truth theories based on these logics. This book puts forward the prospects for truth-theories based on the metainferential logics of the TS/ST hierarchy and argues for its promise noting that each of these logics can be safely expanded with a transparent truth predicate. It also goes onto to explore new developments in three fields related to logics – namely metainferential logics built by means of the Weak Kleene schema and combining them with logics defined through the Strong Kleene schema, proof-theoretic presentations, and those with a with a global or an absolutely global validity standard, instead of a local one. This book is of interest to scholars in formal logic.

Conciliatory views on disagreement claim that one should “split the difference” between the epistemic peers’ opinions. Nevertheless, when they apply to the disagreement on conciliatory positions themselves, they give incoherent instructions. A semi-conciliatory position is one that accepts that the peers’ opinions are part of the whole body of evidence relevant in these situations. If one adopts this kind of view, all cases that seems to favor conciliatory views can be explained, and without compromising with the anti–intuitive consequences conciliatory positions have. In particular, a semi-conciliatory view is not condemned to give incoherent instructions when applied to disagreement about it.

Las teorías relativistas acerca de las atribuciones de conocimiento sostienen que el valor de verdad de una atribución de conocimiento está determinado por el contexto de evaluación de la atribución. Me ocuparé de dos de las principales críticas que se le han formulado al relativismo. Por un lado, Jason Stanley niega que el relativismo pueda dar cuenta de la factividad del conocimiento. Por otra parte, Manuel García Carpintero sostiene que el relativismo se compromete con una inaceptable imagen sobre las normas que rigen la práctica asertiva. Responderé ambas objeciones. Presentaré primero un modo de dar cuenta de la factividad no evaluado por Stanley. La respuesta a García Carpintero, por su parte, supondrá distinguir en qué sentido la verdad es, y en que otro no es, una norma de la aserción.Relativist’s theories about knowledge attributions maintain that the truth value of such assertions is partially fixed by the assessment context. I will answer two of the main objections that it has received. On the one side, Jason Stanley denies that relativism can explain the factivity of knowledge. On the other side, Manuel García Carpintero believes that relativism is commited to an unacceptable picture of assertion. The answer to Stanley’s objection involves a way of explaining factivity that he has not evaluated. The answer to García Carpintero involves distinguishing in what way truth is, and in what way it isn’t, a norm of assertion