I’m excited to advertise a forthcoming anthology, with Cambridge University Press, entitled The Metaphysics of Logic: Logical Realism, Logical Anti-Realism and All Things In Between. The anthology is the brainchild of Penelope Rush (Tasmania), who is editing the book. It was recently accepted for publication by Cambridge, and if everything goes smoothly I expect that you can buy it in early 2014. The proposal, which I’ve seen, looks great, and I really look forward to reading the papers. Topics include general approaches to the metaphysics of logic, such as logical realism, anti-realism, and naturalism; historical pieces on Aristotle, Bolzano, and Kant, and specific issues such as the revisability of logic and logical truth.

The metaphysics of logic is a topic which I’ve thought about before and I’m quite pleased to finally see a book length study on it. My previous related work include my 2009 paper in the Australasian Journal of Logic, ‘The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle‘, and the older ‘The Metaphysical Status of Logic‘, based on my presentation at LOGICA 2007. In fact, The AJL paper appears to be my most read paper (based on downloads from various sources), which goes to show that the issues are topical. I’ve been meaning to return to this theme, so I’m happy to be contributing to the volume. My piece is provisionally titled ‘The Metaphysical Interpretation of Logical Truth’.

I had a great experience with CUP when I was editing my own volume, and I’ve no doubt that this volume will have the same treatment. More updates in due course!

The list of contributors is very impressive:

• Jody Azzouni, Department of Philosophy, Tufts University.
• J. C. Beall, Department of Philosophy and the Philosophy and Logic Group, University of Connecticut and University of Otago.
• Ermanno Bencivenga, Philosophy in the School of Humanities, University of California, Irvine.
• Solomon Feferman, Depts. of Mathematics and Philosophy, Stanford University.
• Curtis Franks, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame.
• Gyula Klima, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, New York.
• Sandra Lapointe, Department of Philosophy at McMaster University.
• Penelope Maddy, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine.
• Graham Priest, The University of Melbourne, Boyce Gibson Professor of Philosophy, and CUNY Graduate Centre Distinguished Professor of Philosophy.
• Penelope Rush, Philosophy Department, University of Tasmania.
• Stewart Shapiro, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University.
• Mark Steiner, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Tuomas E. Tahko, Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki.
• Paul Thom, Honorary Visiting Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, New South Wales.

This should be interesting, although I don’t know whether there will be anything new presented. I’ve contributed to the debate about true contradictions in my ‘The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle’ (2009) — effectively addressing the suggested topic of ‘Are contradictions ‘in the world’ or merely a semantic phenomenon?’, but this is a topic that I’d like to return to some day. I’ll see if I can think of something new to say before the deadline! The timing is not ideal for me though, as I’ll be teaching.

25 Years In Contradiction

7-9 December 2012, University of Glasgow

Keynote Speakers:

J.C. Beall (Connecticut)
Graham Priest (CUNY/Melbourne)
Stewart Shapiro (Ohio State)
Alan Weir (Glasgow)

This conference marks the 25th anniversary of the publication of Graham
Priest’s In Contradiction. It is hosted by the School of Humanities at the
University of Glasgow.

In Contradiction is the first serious defence of the view that there are
true contradictions (dialetheism), as a response to the paradoxes of self-
reference. The transition of dialetheism from a view on the ‘lunatic
fringe’, to be dismissed with an incredulous stare, to one of the major
players in the debate surrounding truth and paradox, is one of the most
significant developments in philosophical logic of the last 30 years.
Priest’s work and, in particular, In Contradiction has been central to the
development of dialetheism, with the latter (now expanded in its second
edition) still regarded as the view’s canonical text.

In this conference, we wish to mark the 25th anniversary of In
Contradiction by hosting a selection of papers assessing the state of the
art for dialetheism, the problems it faces and avenues for future
research.

Possible topics for submissions are:

Does dialetheism suffer from ‘revenge problems’?

Are contradictions ‘in the world’ or merely a semantic phenomenon?

What are the merits and disadvantages of the different versions of
dialetheism?

How should mathematics be done in a dialetheist context?

What are the applications of dialetheism to other areas of philosophy?

Papers should be approximately 30 – 40 minutes long. Abstracts of c. 500
words should be sent to Adam.Rieger@glasgow.ac.uk or
g.young.3@research.gla.ac.uk, by September 30th.

We hope to have some money to support travel for graduate students; please
mention that you are a graduate student when submitting an abstract.

It is hoped to publish a volume of proceedings with a leading press.

I’ve considered of submitting something to LOGICA every year since I first presented there in 2007, but so far there has always been something overlapping. This is the case once again, as I’ve been invited to a conference at Tampere at the same time. However, LOGICA is a splendid conference and the location, a monastery at the foot of the mountains that separate Czech Republic and Poland, is wonderful. So the conference is highly recommended for anyone working on formal or philosophical aspects of logic. My own paper didn’t contain a single line of logical notation, so they do welcome non-formal presentations as well.

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, announces

LOGICA 2011

the 25th in the series of annual international symposia devoted to logic, to be held at Hejnice (in northern Bohemia, about 2.5 hours from Prague) 20 – 24 June 2011.

Invited speakers are Edwin Mares, Pavel Materna, Krister Segerberg, and Gila Sher

The official language of the symposium is English. The first session of the symposium begins on the morning of June 21. The symposium closes at noon Friday June 24.

Contributions devoted to any of the wide range of logical problems are welcome except those focused on specialized technical applications. Particularly welcome are contributions that cover issues interesting both for ‘philosophically’ and for ‘mathematically’ oriented logicians.

Contributions to Logica symposia are published in The Logica Yearbook series (College Publications). Previous volumes include papers from Nuel Belnap, Johan van Benthem, Melvin Fitting, Bob Hale, Wilfrid Hodges, Jaakko Hintikka, David Lewis, Jeff Paris, Dag Prawitz, Graham Priest, Stephen Read, Greg Restall, Gabriel Sandu, Howard Sobel, Stewart Shapiro and many others.

The fee for the symposium is 400 EUR for participants and 280 EUR for accompanying persons. The fee covers full board and lodging at Hejnice Monastery during the symposium, the conference coach from Prague to Hejnice and back, and (for participants) a copy of the volume containing contributions to the symposium.

If you are interested in presenting a paper at the symposium, please email us a two-page abstract accompanied by a separate sheet with your name, contact address and affiliation by 28 February 2011. MS Word or pdf are the accepted formats. The subject line of email submissions should contain “Logica 2011″ to assure that the mail will not be deleted as spam. Notifications of acceptance will be sent out by the end of March.

Scholars from countries with underfunded academic institutions are invited to apply for a reduction of the conference fee. In exceptional cases the organizing committee may cover the entire fee. Those who wish to apply for the reduction should explicitly state so when submitting their abstract, which should be extended to four pages.

For up-to-date information as well as information about previous events in the series visit: www.flu.cas.cz/logica

For information about the conference site see
http://www.mcdo.cz/index.php?lang=eng .

All correspondence concerning the symposium should be directed to

logica@flu.cas.cz

or to:

Vladimir Svoboda
Chair of the Organizing Committee of Logica 2011
Institute of Philosophy
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Jilska 1, 110 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic
fax: +420-221183321

This combination of a mini-course and a workshop, which is effectively on pluralism in logic, looks rather interesting. It is part of the Foundations of Logical Consequence project and takes place in St. Andrews. I don’t think I’m going as I’m busy enough as it is, although it would be a great chance to meet some top people in philosophical logic, especially Graham Priest. Anyway, this is not my primary area, even though I do have a paper, entitled ‘On the Notion of Logical Truth’, which deals, among other things, with the question of whether there is a One True Logic, and how logical pluralism could be understood. If anyone reading this is considering of going, do let me know!

Here is the official announcement:

Arché ‘Logic or Logics?’ Mini-course and Workshop

27 September – 1 October, 2010, University of St Andrews

The Arché ‘Logic or Logics?’ Mini-course and Workshop are organised by the members of the AHRC funded Foundations of Logical Consequence project. The Mini-Course is intended for graduate students and younger researchers (postdocs and junior faculty) working on related topics. The aim is to provide intensive graduate-level instruction on the latest thinking about pluralism and revision in logic. Topics will include the revision of logic debate, logical pluralism vs. absolutism (or monism), and combining logics. The week will conclude with a Workshop dedicated to contemporary research on the same theme.

The speakers for the Mini-course are:

• JC Beall (University of Connecticut)
• Carlos Caleiro (Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal)
• João Marcos (DIMAp / UFRN, Brazil)
• Graham Priest (University of Melbourne/CUNY)
• Greg Restall (University of Melbourne)
• Gillian Russell (Washington University, St Louis)
• Johan van Benthem (University of Amsterdam)

The speakers for the Workshop are:

• JC Beall (University of Connecticut)
• Colin Caret (Arché, University of St Andrews)
• Roy Cook (University of Minnesota)
• Ole Hjortland (Arché, University of St Andrews)
• Greg Restall (University of Melbourne)
• Penelope Rush (University of Tasmania)
• Gillian Russell (Washington University, St Louis)
• Johan van Benthem (University of Amsterdam)

We invite interested parties to register here: http://tinyurl.com/2wtxkp6

For information about accommodation please visit this site: http://www.stayinstandrews.com/

Further inquiries should be directed to arche@st-andrews.ac.uk or you can visit the websites for the ‘Logic or Logics?’ Mini-course and Workshop at the addresses below.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/events/event?id=398

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~arche/events/event?id=399

Welcome the 106th edition of Philosophers’ Carnival — a gourmet selection of philosophy related blog posts from around the blogosphere.

The menu selections for tonight are arranged as follows:

The Hors D’œuvres: Moral Philosophy to be consumed before setting down at the table.
The Entrées: Some sautéed Epistemology.
The Main Courses: Slowly cooked Metaphysics.
The Desserts: A rather special mix of glazed Logic & Language.
The Digestives: Some Philosophy of Mind & Action to help with the digestion.
The Wine List: A true connoisseur’s take on wine with some Philosophy of Science.

Hors D’œuvres: Moral Philosophy

• Thom Brooks at The Brooks Blog wets our appetite with his paper ‘Punishment and British Idealism’, which discusses the work of philosophers such as Bernard Bosanquet, F. H. Bradley, and T. H. Green, and particularly their views on punishment — we are being told that there is an important overlap here between the views of these philosophers and other idealists. Comments on the paper are invited!
• Richard Chappell at Philosophy, et cetera discusses The Limits of Moral Theory over some appetiser drinks. And make those drinks strong, because he tells us that there is no moral theory which manages to guarantee the best possible outcomes even if its requirements are satisfied!
• Eric Michael Johnson at The Primate Diaries entertains us with a pre-dinner talk with the intriguing title ‘Why I Am Not A Humanist’, taking his cue from Bertrand Russell’s essay ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’. I won’t spoil the ending for you, but I’ll let you know that it has something to do with apes…

Entrées: Epistemology

• C. Bosco at Hammers of Flight starts our entrée assortment with a discussion of the Gettier cases and justification in the post Overlapping Arrows from Nowhere. He claims that the term ‘justification’ is problematic and that nothing is justified per se.
• Hans Bluedorn at the Fallacy Detective reminds us that something isn’t true simply because nobody has yet given any evidence to the contrary with this funny video: “Proof By Lack of Evidence” Fallacy.

Main Courses: Metaphysics

• Andrew Brenner at The Florida Student Philosophy Blog starts off our main meal options with some seafood straight from The Ship of Theseus. He discusses two arguments in favour of mereological nihilism — which would suggest that we can avoid the Ship of Theseus problem — and then responds to three objections to mereological nihilism.
• Massimo Pigliucci at Rationally Speaking offers another possibility for the main course, even though he thinks that not quite everything is possible: “Anything is possible.” No, not really. The gist is that an omnipotent god is logically impossible, but there is some very interesting discussion on the varieties of modality as well. A lively discussion is also going on in the comments section.
• Your host for tonight right here at ttahko.net would like to continue on the same note and offer a supplement on the Varieties of Modality. I invite comments to a draft paper of the same name, which is a survey of our options in interpreting varieties of modality, especially metaphysical, conceptual, and logical modality.
• Ross Cameron at metaphysical values changes the flavour towards abstract objects and offers An argument against Platonism. Interestingly, the argument relies heavily on certain supposed conceptual possibilities, such as ‘For everything that exists, it is conceptually possible that it not exist’.
• Martin Cooke at Enigmania offers another maths related dish with a post on Resolving Lévy’s paradox. The paradox concerns the logical possibility of arbitrarily selected real numbers and the upshot is that standard mathematics may be in trouble.
• Kenny Pearce at blog.kennypearce.net finishes the main course options with a post on How reductive theories of mental representation lead to phenomenalism, considering the plausibility of the argument according to which mental representation can be reduced to phenomenal content.

Desserts: Logic and Language

• Edgar Aroutiounian at The Florida Student Philosophy Blog starts the dessert options with an amusing cartoon from xkcd.com on the explosiveness of classical logic: Boom, there goes Classical Logic. The problem is of course that of everything following from a contradiction, and some discussion of our options follows.
• Peter Smith at Logic Matters has been putting up his notes about the work of a philosopher who did not eat so well: Gödel Without (Too Many) Tears. I recommend this introduction to Gödel’s theorems to anyone who, like myself, is not very mathematically competent.
• Andrew Bacon at Possibly Philosophy concludes out dessert choices with some notes about Interpreting the third truth value in Kripke’s theory of truth. Contrary to Kripke and one common view, according to which the third truth value is not really a truth value at all, he suggests that we can indeed view the third truth value as a third truth status.

Digestives: Philosophy of Mind & Action

• Avery Archer at The Space of Reasons starts off our digestive drinks with a discussion of Burge’s Alternative to M-rationalism. M-rationalism, which is short for ‘Motivational Rationalism’ suggests that ‘a psychological transition is rational only if the agent is motivated to complete the transition by her belief that it accords with a rational principle’ and this post suggests that Tyler Burge’s alternative to M-rationalism bears some similarity to R. J. Wallace’s M-rationalist account.
• David Chalmers at fragments of consciousness invites comments on his new paper The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis while we finish off our drinks. The paper discusses the supposed intelligence explosion that could happen if and when machines become more intelligent than humans.

Wine List: Philosophy of Science

• Terrance Tomkow at Tomkow.com has a vintage on offer: Darwin and his Defenders. This is a discussion of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s What Darwin Got Wrong.
• Eric Schliesser at It’s Only A Theory wonders if mathematical models can help in choosing our wine (or at least our philosophy) in a post on Mathematical models and philosophical progress.
• Bryan W. Roberts at Soul Physics offers the final choice for a wine to accompany our meal with some amusing clips about Constructing the Ultimate Machine.

There you have it, some fine choices for your philosophical gourmet dining experience! Apologies to those whose entries were not included — there’s only so much one can eat. The next Philosophers’ Carnival will be hosted at Brains on April 26th. Submit your entry here. In the meanwhile, you’re always welcome to come back to ttahko.net!