Francesco Antonio Genco

The notion of trust is a major player, in many epistemic and computational contexts. Such notion appears especially relevant in all those situations where verification or evaluation of knowledge is missing, not reachable or non-existent, and agents must rely on information received by others. This includes cases where expert knowers may not yet be able to ground their claims, and the public has to build an opinion by considering the dynamic of the information exchange. Formal logic approaches to this aim have been increasingly important and diverse in the last decades. A natural and important extension of such multi-agent contexts is where epistemic acts are performed under uncertainty, at several levels: the claims of the agents may be graded; information may reach agents with a certain degree of probability; and the degree of acceptance or rejection of the information received may not be binary. We present a multi-agent logic of negative trust applied to uncertain judgements. We offer a proof theory and a relational semantics for which standard soundness and completeness results hold.

The notion of grounding is usually conceived as an objective and explanatory relation. It connects two relata if one—the ground—determines or explains the other—the consequence. In the contemporary literature on grounding, much effort has been devoted to logically characterize the formal aspects of grounding, but a major hard problem remains: defining suitable grounding principles for universal and existential formulae. Indeed, several grounding principles for quantified formulae have been proposed, but all of them are exposed to paradoxes in some very natural contexts of application. We introduce in this paper a first-order formal system that captures the notion of grounding and avoids the paradoxes in a novel and non-trivial way. The system we present formally develops Bolzano’s ideas on grounding by employing Hilbert’s ε-terms and an adapted version of Fine’s theory of arbitrary objects.

The distinction between the proofs that only certify the truth of their conclusion and those that also display the reasons why their conclusion holds has a long philosophical history. In the contemporary literature, the grounding relation—an objective, explanatory relation which is tightly connected with the notion of reason—is receiving considerable attention in several fields of philosophy. While much work is being devoted to characterising logical grounding in terms of deduction rules, no in-depth study focusing on the difference between grounding rules and logical rules exists. In this work, we analyse the relation between logical grounding and classical logic by focusing on the technical and conceptual differences that distinguish grounding rules and logical rules. The calculus employed to conduct the analysis provides moreover a strong confirmation of the fact that grounding derivations are logical derivations of a certain kind, without trivialising the distinction between grounding and logical rules, explanatory and non-explanatory parts of a derivation. By a further formal analysis, we negatively answer the question concerning the possible correspondence between grounding rules and intuitionistic logical rules.

The Mīmā ṃ sā school of Indian philosophy elaborated complex ways of interpreting the prescriptive portions of the Vedic sacred texts. The present article is the result of the collaboration of a group of scholars of logic, computer science, European philosophy and Indian philosophy and aims at the individuation and analysis of the deontic system which is applied but never explicitly discussed in Mīmā ṃ sā texts. The article outlines the basic distinction between three sorts of principles —hermeneutic, linguistic and deontic. It proposes a mathematical formalization of the deontic principles and uses it to discuss a well-known example of seemingly conflicting statements, namely the prescription to undertake the malefic Śyena sacrifice and the prohibition to perform any harm.

This paper studies the notions of conceptual grounding and conceptual explanation (which includes the notion of mathematical explanation), with an aim of clarifying the links between them. On the one hand, it analyses complex examples of these two notions that bring to the fore features that are easily overlooked otherwise. On the other hand, it provides a formal framework for modeling both conceptual grounding and conceptual explanation, based on the concept of proof. Inspiration and analogies are drawn with the recent research in metaphysics on the pair metaphysical grounding–metaphysical explanation, and especially with the literature in philosophy of science on the pair causality-causal explanation.

We present a logical framework that enables us to define a formal theory of computational trust in which this notion is analysed in terms of epistemic attitudes towards the possible objects of trust and in relation to existing evidence in favour of the trustworthiness of these objects. The framework is based on a quantified epistemic and justification logic featuring a non-standard handling of identities. Thus, the theory is able to account for the hyperintensional nature of computational trust. We present a proof system and a frame semantics for the logic, we prove soundness and completeness results and we introduce the syntactical machinery required to define a theory of trust.

This paper studies the notions of conceptual grounding and conceptual explanation (which includes the notion of mathematical explanation), with an aim of clarifying the links between them. On the one hand, it analyses complex examples of these two notions that bring to the fore features that are easily overlooked otherwise. On the other hand, it provides a formal framework for modeling both conceptual grounding and conceptual explanation, based on the concept of proof. Inspiration and analogies are drawn with the recent research in metaphysics on the pair metaphysical grounding–metaphysical explanation, and especially with the literature in philosophy of science on the pair causality-causal explanation.

We formally investigate immediate and mediate grounding operators from an inferential perspective. We discuss the differences in behaviour displayed by several grounding operators and consider a general distinction between grounding and logical operators. Without fixing a particular notion of grounding or grounding relation, we present inferential rules that define, once a base grounding calculus has been fixed, three grounding operators: an operator for immediate grounding, one for mediate grounding – corresponding to the transitive closure of the immediate grounding one – and a grounding tree operator, which enables us to internalise chains of immediate grounding claims without losing any information about them. We then present an in-depth proof-theoretical study of the introduced rules by focussing, in particular, on the question whether grounding operators can be considered as logical operators and whether balanced rules for grounding operators can be defined.