Hykel Hosni

We introduce and investigate a family of consequence relations with the goal of capturing certain important patterns of data-driven inference. The inspiring idea for our framework is the fact that data may reject, possibly to some degree, and possibly by mistake, any given scientific hypothesis. There is no general agreement in science about how to do this, which motivates putting forward a logical formulation of the problem. We do so by investigating distinct definitions of ‘rejection degrees’ each yielding a consequence relation. Our investigation leads to novel variations on the theme of rational consequence relations, prominent among non-monotonic logics.

Hykel Hosni interviews Kenneth Aizawa, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Rutgers University, Newark. The interview opens with Aizawa’s reflections on the challenges currently confronting U.S. universities under the second Trump administration. It then turns to a discussion of his forthcoming book, Compositional Abduction and Scientific Interpretation: A Granular Approach. Following a retrospective on Aizawa’s academic trajectory, the conversation concludes with his advice for early-stage researchers.

This book calls for a rethinking of logic as the core methodological tool for scientific reasoning in the context of a steadily increasing emphasis on data-centered science. To do so it provides a state-of-the-art presentation of the role logic can have in making the most of the current opportunities while making explicit the key challenges opened up by the data-driven age of scientific research. Particular attention is given to the following four core fields and applications: Reasoning with correlations (medical, life-science applications); logics for statistical inference (machine learning, and societal applications thereof); reasoning with evidence (defining good evidence); causal reasoning (forensic reasoning). The book collects contributions from key logicians, methodologists and scientists. This multidisciplinary perspective benefits both scientists and logicians interested in data-driven science. Scientists are introduced to logics that go beyond classical and thus are applicable to reasoning with data; Logicians have a change to focus on the potential applications of their methods and techniques to pressing scientific problems. This book is, therefore, of interest to scientists and logicians working on data-centered science.

We introduce and investigate a family of consequence relations with the goal of capturing certain important patterns of data-driven inference. The inspiring idea for our framework is the fact that data may reject, possibly to some degree, and possibly by mistake, any given scientific hypothesis. There is no general agreement in science about how to do this, which motivates putting forward a logical formulation of the problem. We do so by investigating distinct definitions of ‘rejection degrees’ each yielding a consequence relation. Our investigation leads to novel variations on the theme of rational consequence relations, prominent among non-monotonic logics.

Betting methods, of which de Finetti's Dutch Book is by far the most well-known, are uncertainty modelling devices which accomplish a twofold aim. Whilst providing an interpretation of the relevant measure of uncertainty, they also provide a formal definition of coherence. The main purpose of this paper is to put forward a betting method for belief functions on MV-algebras of many-valued events which allows us to isolate the corresponding coherence criterion, which we term coherence in the aggregate. Our framework generalises the classical Dutch Book method

We illustrate how a variety of logical methods and techniques provide useful, though currently underappreciated, tools in the foundations and applications of reasoning under uncertainty. The field is vast spanning logic, artificial intelligence, statistics, and decision theory. Rather than (hopelessly) attempting a comprehensive survey, we focus on a handful of telling examples. While most of our attention will be devoted to frameworks in which uncertainty is quantified probabilistically, we will also touch upon generalisations of probability measures of uncertainty, which have attracted a significant interest in the past few decades.

This paper sheds new light on the subtle relation between probability and logic by (i) providing a logical development of Bruno de Finetti's conception of events and (ii) suggesting that the subjective nature of de Finetti's interpretation of probability emerges in a clearer form against such a logical background. By making explicit the epistemic structure which underlies what we call Choice-based probability we show that whilst all rational degrees of belief must be probabilities, the converse doesn't hold: some probability values don't represent decision-relevant quantifications of uncertainty

This paper presents the results of an experiment on mutual versus common knowledge of advice in a two-player weak-link game with random matching. Our experimental subjects play in pairs for thirteen rounds. After a brief learning phase common to all treatments, we vary the knowledge levels associated with external advice given in the form of a suggestion to pick the strategy supporting the payoff-dominant equilibrium. Our results are somewhat surprising and can be summarized as follows: in all our treatments both the choice of the efficiency-inducing action and the percentage of efficient equilibrium play are higher with respect to the control treatment, revealing that even a condition as weak as mutual knowledge of level 1 is sufficient to significantly increase the salience of the efficient equilibrium with respect to the absence of advice. Furthermore, and contrary to our hypothesis, mutual knowledge of level 2 induces, under suitable conditions, successful coordination more frequently than common knowledge.

Predicting the future state of a system has always been a natural motivation for science and practical applications. Such a topic, beyond its obvious technical and societal relevance, is also interesting from a conceptual point of view. This owes to the fact that forecasting lends itself to two equally radical, yet opposite methodologies. A reductionist one, based on first principles, and the naïve-inductivist one, based only on data. This latter view has recently gained some attention in response to the availability of unprecedented amounts of data and increasingly sophisticated algorithmic analytic techniques. The purpose of this note is to assess critically the role of big data in reshaping the key aspects of forecasting and in particular the claim that bigger data leads to better predictions. Drawing on the representative example of weather forecasts we argue that this is not generally the case. We conclude by suggesting that a clever and context-dependent compromise between modelling and quantitative analysis stands out as the best forecasting strategy, as anticipated nearly a century ago by Richardson and von Neumann.

This paper introduces a logical analysis of convex combinations within the framework of Łukasiewicz real-valued logic. This provides a natural link between the fields of many-valued logics and decision theory under uncertainty, where the notion of convexity plays a central role. We set out to explore such a link by defining convex operators on MV-algebras, which are the equivalent algebraic semantics of Łukasiewicz logic. This gives us a formal language to reason about the expected value of bounded random variables. As an illustration of the applicability of our framework we present a logical version of the Anscombe–Aumann representation result.

Second-order uncertainty, also known as model uncertainty and Knightian uncertainty, arises when decision-makers can (partly) model the parameters of their decision problems. It is widely believed that subjective probability, and more generally Bayesian theory, are ill-suited to represent a number of interesting second-order uncertainty features, especially “ignorance” and “ambiguity”. This failure is sometimes taken as an argument for the rejection of the whole Bayesian approach, triggering a Bayes vs anti-Bayes debate which is in many ways analogous to what the classical vs non-classical debate used to be in logic. This paper attempts to unfold this analogy and suggests that the development of non-standard logics offers very useful lessons on the contextualisation of justified norms of rationality. By putting those lessons to work I will flesh out an epistemological framework suitable for extending the expressive power of standard Bayesian norms of rationality to second- order uncertainty in a way which is both formally and foundationally conservative. Contents