Inferentialism is a theory in the philosophy of language which claims that the meanings of expressions are constituted by inferential roles or relations. Instead of a traditional model-theoretic semantics, it naturally lends itself to a proof-theoretic semantics, where meaning is understood in terms of inference rules with a proof system. Most work in proof-theoretic semantics has focused on logical constants, with comparatively little work on the semantics of non-logical vocabulary. Drawing on Robert Brandom’s notion of (...) material inference and Greg Restall’s bilateralist interpretation of the multiple conclusion sequent calculus, I present a proof-theoretic semantics for atomic sentences and their constituent names and predicates. The resulting system has several interesting features: (1) the rules are harmonious and stable; (2) the rules create a structure analogous to familiar model-theoretic semantics; and (3) the semantics is compositional, in that the rules for atomic sentences are determined by those for their constituent names and predicates. (shrink)

In this study two strands of inferentialism are brought together: the philosophical doctrine of Brandom, according to which meanings are generally inferential roles, and the logical doctrine prioritizing proof-theory over model theory and approaching meaning in logical, especially proof-theoretical terms.

Quentin Skinner’s appropriation of speech act theory for intellectual history has been extremely influential. Even as the model continues to be important for historians, however, philosophers now regard the original speech act theory paradigm as dated. Are there more recent initiatives that might reignite theoretical work in this area? This article argues that the inferentialism of Robert Brandom is one of the most interesting contemporary philosophical projects with historical implications. It shows how Brandom’s work emerged out of the (...) broad shift in the philosophy of language from semantics to pragmatics that also informed speech act theory. The article then goes on to unpack the rich implications of Brandom’s inferentialism for the theory and practice of intellectual history. It contends that inferentialism clarifies, legitimizes, and informs intellectual historical practice, and it concludes with a consideration of the challenges faced by inferentialist intellectual history, together with an argument for the broader implications of Brandom’s work. (shrink)

An adequate semantics for generic sentences must stake out positions across a range of contested territory in philosophy and linguistics. For this reason the study of generic sentences is a venue for investigating different frameworks for understanding human rationality as manifested in linguistic phenomena such as quantification, classification of individuals under kinds, defeasible reasoning, and intensionality. Despite the wide variety of semantic theories developed for generic sentences, to date these theories have been almost universally model-theoretic and representational. This (...) essay outlines a range of proof-theoretic analyses for characterizing generics. Particular attention is given to an expressivist proof-theory that can be traced to 1) work on logical syntax that Carnap undertook prior to his turn toward truth-conditional model theory in the late 1930s, and 2) research on sequent calculi and natural deduction systems that originate in work from Gentzen and Prawitz.11 This essay offers a more precise exposition of some of the material discussed in the first two chapters of my dissertation (Stovall Citation2015a). These ideas developed in the context of a working group on non-monotonic logic run by Robert Brandom, and they were subsequently clarified through the work of Nissim Francez (particularly Francez Citation2015). I am indebted to many people for feedback and criticism on this essay, though I am sure none among them would agree with everything I say and do here. I would particularly like to thank Brandom, Francez, Ulf Hlobil, Daniel Kaplan, Jared Millson, Bernhard Nickel, Jaroslav Peregrin, Jeffry Pelletier, Thomas Ricketts, Mark Risjord, Shawn Standefer, and two reviewers for this journal. Work on this essay was supported by the joint Lead-Agency research grant between the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) and the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR), Inferentialism and Collective Intentionality, GF17-33808L. It was substantially revised prior to its final submission. (shrink)

Philosophers interested in the theoretical consequences of predictive processing often assume that predictive processing is an inferentialist and representationalist theory of cognition. More specifically, they assume that predictive processing revolves around approximated Bayesian inferences drawn by inverting a generative model. Generative models, in turn, are said to be structural representations: representational vehicles that represent their targets by being structurally similar to them. Here, I challenge this assumption, claiming that, at present, it lacks an adequate justification. I examine the only (...) argument offered to establish that generative models are structural representations, and argue that it does not substantiate the desired conclusion. Having so done, I consider a number of alternative arguments aimed at showing that the relevant structural similarity obtains, and argue that all these arguments are unconvincing for a variety of reasons. I then conclude the paper by briefly highlighting three themes that might be relevant for further investigation on the matter. (shrink)

I show that the model-theoretic meaning that can be read off the natural deduction rules for disjunction fails to have certain desirable properties. I use this result to argue against a modest form of inferentialism which uses natural deduction rules to fix model-theoretic truth-conditions for logical connectives.

All through the literatura, the question about what is a logical constant has recieved many answers, from model-theoretic aproaches,, to answers that focus in the inferential practice as meaning,,. Detractors of the second tradition presented many ineludible incovenients, in particular, the logical constant named ‘tonk’. Inferentialist tryed many solutions, in particular they presented the concept of ‘harmony’. The goal of this paper is to show that the different criteria of ‘harmony’ used in the proof-theoretic semantics to determine (...) what is and what is not a logical constant fail to be necessary or sufficient. I will show the philosophical reasons that make this concept appear and then i will describe the different ways in wich the literatura understads the concept of ‘harmony’. Then I will show that they subgenerate or overgenerate connectives with some counterexamples. Finaly, I will explain some philosophical reasons that should delimitate where to go towards a satisfactory definition of ‘harmony’. (shrink)

Logical inferentialism claims that the meaning of the logical constants should be given, not model-theoretically, but by the rules of inference of a suitable calculus. It has been claimed that certain proof-theoretical systems, most particularly, labelled deductive systems for modal logic, are unsuitable, on the grounds that they are semantically polluted and suffer from an untoward intrusion of semantics into syntax. The charge is shown to be mistaken. It is argued on inferentialist grounds that labelled deductive systems are (...) as syntactically pure as any formal system in which the rules define the meanings of the logical constants. (shrink)

Logical pluralism from historical perspective -The plurality of logics is understood as a challenge to seek a deeper understanding of the na- ture and import of logic. Two basic approaches to demarcation of logic are considered, the model-theoretic and the proof-theoretic one. Investigation of the history which led to these two appraoches identifies the postion of logic in Kant's epistemology as crucial for the devel- opment. An analogical development from Kant's conception of geometry to the plurality of (...) geometric theories leads to a holistic view both of geometry and of logic. It furthermore proves essential to understand the pragmatic import of logic. Given the problems tied to the attempts to demarcate logic, inferentialism and logical expressivism are arrived at as jointly provid- ing the most appropriate account. These approaches are developed into a conception which stresses, in line with the historical perspective of the work, the ability of logic to develop. (shrink)

Carnap (1943) noted that categoricity fails even for propositional logic. He observed that some “non-normal” models exist for classical logical consequence. The immediate reaction to this phenomenon was to strengthen the formal machinery or impose semantical constraints to rule out nonnormal models, and as a result, their very structure was largely overlooked. In this paper, I examine these non-normal models and explore the possibility that they assign non-classical meanings to logical connectives. By relaxing some standards regarding semantics, we will see (...) that these models, in some sense, embed a non-deterministic matrix (Nmatrix) with interesting similarity to the strong Kleene’s 3-valued matrix. Then, I briefly explore its induced logics: two non-compositional counterparts of the well-known logics LP and K3. (shrink)

A system of logic usually comprises a language for which a model-theory and a proof-theory are defined. The model-theory defines the semantic notion of model-theoretic logical consequence (⊨), while the proof-theory defines the proof- theoretic notion of logical consequence (or logical derivability, ⊢). If the system in question is sound and complete, then the two notions of logical consequence are extensionally equivalent. The concept of full formalization is a more restrictive one and requires in addition (...) the preservation of the standard meanings of the logical terms in all the admissible interpretations of the logical calculus, as it is proof-theoretically defined. Although classical first-order logic is sound and complete, its standard formalizations fall short to be full formalizations since they allow non-intended interpretations. This fact poses a challenge for the logical inferentialism program, whose main tenet is that the meanings of the logical terms are uniquely determined by the formal axioms or rules of inference that govern their use in a logical calculus, i.e., logical inferentialism requires a categorical calculus. This paper is the first part of a more elaborated study which will analyze the categoricity problem from its beginning until the most recent approaches. I will first start by describing the problem of a full formalization in the general framework in which Carnap (1934/1937, 1943) formulated it for classical logic. Then, in sections IV and V, I shall discuss the way in which the mathematicians B.A. Bernstein (1932) and E.V. Huntington (1933) have previously formulated and analyzed it in algebraic terms for propositional logic and, finally, I shall discuss some critical reactions Nagel (1943), Hempel (1943), Fitch (1944), and Church (1944) formulated to these approaches. (shrink)

Although it receives less attention, (Lewis in Noûs 13:455–476, 1979. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215339) admitted that the branching-time(-like) model fits a wide range of counterfactuals, including (Nix) ‘If Nixon had pressed the button, there would have been a nuclear war’, which was raised by (Fine in Mind 84:451–458, 1975). However, Lewis then claimed that similarity analysis is more general than temporality analysis. In this paper, we do not scrutinise his claim. Instead, we re-analyse (Nix) not only model-theoretically but also proof-theoretically from (...) the ‘meaning-as-use’ and ‘inferentialist’ points of view. Then, we re-formalise (Nix) in a natural extension of hybrid tense logic, which we refer to as hybrid tense logic for temporal conditionals (HTL$$_{TC}$$ TC ). Consequently, we find that not only among counterfactuals, but also among indicatives, there is a wide range of conditionals whose formalisation in HTL$$_{TC}$$ TC is appropriate. We refer to these conditionals as temporal conditionals. This suggests a new logical generality that temporality analysis has but similarity analysis does not, from which emerges a new logical perspective on conditionals in general: temporal ones and others. (shrink)

Adding certain cardinality quantifiers into first-order language will give substantially more expressive languages. Thus, many mathematical concepts beyond first-order logic can be handled. Since basic modal logic can be seen as the bisimular invariant fragment of first-order logic on the level of models, it has no ability to handle modally these mathematical concepts beyond first-order logic. By adding modalities regarding the cardinalities of successor states, we can, in principle, investigate modal logics of all cardinalities. Thus ways of exploring model- (...) class='Hi'>theoretic logics can be transferred to modal logics. (shrink)

We give a model-theoretic proof of the fact that for all infinite Abelian groups P ≠ NP in the sense of binary nondeterminism. This result has been announced 1994 by Christine Gabner.

This book brings together several directions of work in model theory between the late 1950s and early 1980s.

This contribution is concerned with a particular model theoretic semantics of the object language of quantum physics. The object language considered here comprises logically connected propositions, sequentially connected propositions and modal propositions. The model theoretic semantics arises from the already established dialogic semantics, if the pragmatic concept of the dialog-game is replaced by a "metaphysical" concept of the game. The game is determined by a game tree, the branches of which constitute a set, the set of (...) "possible worlds" of an individual quantum physical system. The semantic concepts like truth, falsity and valuation are defined with respect to this set. (shrink)

This book presents a detailed treatment of ordinal combinatorics of large sets tailored for independence results. It uses model theoretic and combinatorial methods to obtain results in proof theory, such as incompleteness theorems or a description of the provably total functions of a theory. In the first chapter, the authors first discusses ordinal combinatorics of finite sets in the style of Ketonen and Solovay. This provides a background for an analysis of subsystems of Peano Arithmetic as well as (...) for combinatorial independence results. Next, the volume examines a variety of proofs of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The presented proofs differ strongly in nature. They show various aspects of incompleteness phenomena. In additon, coverage introduces some classical methods like the arithmetized completeness theorem, satisfaction predicates or partial satisfaction classes. It also applies them in many contexts. The fourth chapter defines the method of indicators for obtaining independence results. It shows what amount of transfinite induction we have in fragments of Peano arithmetic. Then, it uses combinatorics of large sets of the first chapter to show independence results. The last chapter considers nonstandard satisfaction classes. It presents some of the classical theorems related to them. In particular, it covers the results by S. Smith on definability in the language with a satisfaction class and on models without a satisfaction class. Overall, the book's content lies on the border between combinatorics, proof theory, and model theory of arithmetic. It offers readers a distinctive approach towards independence results by model-theoretic methods. (shrink)

The first section of the paper gives a very condensed history of the evolution of the author’s views on realism and anti-realism. It emphasizes that his previously accepted form of anti-realism was abandoned not because of the alleged fallacies in the model-theoretic argument against metaphysical realism, but due to his rejection of some of the assumptions on which it rests - assumptions which have been almost universal in philosophy after Descartes. The second section discusses and defends the part (...) of the model-theoretic argument that many critics have almost universally found fallacious, namely the „just more theory” move. In the appendix to the paper the author elaborates what does his return to common sense realism mean. He points out that his position involves a negative element, the rejection of the idea that truth cannot outrun verifiability, and two positive elements: returning (as close as possible) to „naive realism” with respect to perception, and a disquotational account of truth similar to one endorsed by Wittgenstein. (shrink)

We bring together some facts about the weak pigeonhole principle from bounded arithmetic, complexity theory, cryptography and abstract model theory. We characterize the models of arithmetic in which WPHP fails as those which are determined by an initial segment and prove a conditional separation result in bounded arithmetic, that PV + lies strictly between PV and S21 in strength, assuming that the cryptosystem RSA is secure.

Abstract: Hilary Putnam has reformulated his model-theoretic argument as an argument against indirect realism in the philosophy of perception. This new argument is reviewed and defended. Putnam’s new focus on philosophical theories of perception (instead of metaphysical realism) makes better sense of his previous responses to the objection from the causal theory of reference. It is argued that the model-theoretic argument can also be construed as an argument that holders of a causal theory of reference should (...) adopt direct realism in the philosophy of perception. (shrink)

We describe a model-theoretic approach to ordinal analysis via the finite combinatorial notion of an α-large set of natural numbers. In contrast to syntactic approaches that use cut elimination, this approach involves constructing finite sets of numbers with combinatorial properties that, in nonstandard instances, give rise to models of the theory being analyzed. This method is applied to obtain ordinal analyses of a number of interesting subsystems of first- and second-order arithmetic.

We study model theoretic tree properties and their associated cardinal invariants. In particular, we obtain a quantitative refinement of Shelah’s theorem for countable theories, show that [Formula: see text] is always witnessed by a formula in a single variable and that weak [Formula: see text] is equivalent to [Formula: see text]. Besides, we give a characterization of [Formula: see text] via a version of independent amalgamation of types and apply this criterion to verify that some examples in the (...) literature are indeed [Formula: see text]. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate Putnam’s model-theoretic argument from a transcendent standpoint, in spite of Putnam’s well-known objections to such a standpoint. This transcendence, however, requires ascent to something more like a Tarskian meta-level than what Putnam regards as a “God’s eye view”. Still, it is methodologically quite powerful, leading to a significant increase in our investigative tools. The result is a shift from Putnam’s skeptical conclusion to a new understanding of realism, truth, correspondence, knowledge, and theories, or (...) certain aspects thereof, based on, among other things, a better understanding of what models are designed (and not designed) to do. (shrink)

Two of Hilary Putnam's model-theoretic arguments against metaphysical realism are examined in detail. One of them is developed as an extension of a model-theoretic argument against mathematical realism based on considerations concerning the so-called Skolem-Paradox in set theory. This argument against mathematical realism is also treated explicitly. The article concentrates on the fine structure of the arguments because most commentators have concentrated on the major premisses of Putnam's argument and especially on his treatment of metaphysical realism. (...) It is shown that the validity of Putnam's arguments is doubtful and that realists are by no means forced to accept the theses Putnam ascribes to them. It is concluded that Putnam fails to give convincing arguments for rejecting mathematical or metaphysical realism. Furthermore, Putnam's internal realism is discussed critically. (shrink)

An introduction to the model-theoretic approach in the philosophy of science is given and it is argued that this program is further enhanced by the introduction of partial structures. It is then shown that this leads to a natural and intuitive account of both "iconic" and mathematical models and of the role of the former in science itself.

We prove a generalization of the Elekes–Szabó theorem [G. Elekes and E. Szabó, How to find groups?, Combinatorica 32 537–571 ] for relations defina...

My model-theoretic realist account of science places linguistic systems and the corresponding non-linguistic structures at different stages of the scientific process. It is shown that science and its progress cannot be analysed in terms of only one of these strata. Philosophy of science literature offers mainly two approaches; to the structure of scientific knowledge analysed in terms of theories and their models, the "statement" and the "non-statement" approaches. In opposition to the statement approach's belief that scientific knowledge is (...) embodied in theories symbolic language) with direct interpretative links---via so-called "bridge principles"---to reality, the defenders of the non-statement approach believe in an analysis where the language in which the theory is formulated plays a much smaller role than the structures which satisfy that theory. ;The model-theoretic realism expounded here retains the notion of a scientific theory as a set of sentences, while simultaneously emphasising the interpretative role of the conceptual models of these theories. My criticism against the non-statement approach is based on the fact that merely "giving" the theory "in terms of" its mathematical structures leaves out any real interpretation of the nature and role of general terms in science. Against the statement approach's "direct" linking of general theoretical terms to reality, my approach interpolates models between theories and reality in the interpretative chain. ;The links between the general terms of scientific theories and their interpretations in the various models of the theory regulate the whole referential process. The terms of a theory are "general" in the sense that they are the result of certain abstractive conceptualisations of the object of scientific investigation and subsequent linguistic formulations of these conceptualisations. Their meanings can be "given back" only by interpreting them in the limited context, of the various conceptual models of their theory and, finally, by finding an isomorphic relation between some substructure of the conceptual model in question and some empirical conceptualisation of relevant experimental data. In this sense the notion of scientific "truth" becomes inextricably linked with that of articulated reference, as it---given its model-dependent nature---should be. (shrink)

An introduction to the model-theoretic approach in the philosophy of science is given and it is argued that this program is further enhanced by the introduction of partial structures. It is then shown that this leads to a natural and intuitive account of both "iconic" and mathematical models and of the role of the former in science itself.

We point out how the "Fundamental Theorem of Stability Theory", namely the equivalence between the "non order property" and definability of types, proved by Shelah in the 1970s, is in fact an immediate consequence of Grothendieck's "Criteres de compacite" from 1952. The familiar forms for the defining formulae then follow using Mazur's Lemma regarding weak convergence in Banach spaces.

One of the most signi cant drawbacks of classical logic is its being useless in the presence of an inconsistency. Nevertheless, the classical calculus is a very convenient framework to work with. In this work we propose means for drawing conclusions from systems that are based on classical logic, although the informationmightbe inconsistent. The idea is to detect those parts of the knowledge-base that \cause" the inconsistency, and isolate the parts that are \recoverable". We do this by temporarily switching into (...) Ginsberg/Fitting multi-valued framework of bilattices (which is a common framework for logic programmingand nonmonotonic reasoning). Our method is conservative in the sense that it considers the contradictory data as useless and regards all the remaining information una ected. The resulting logic is nonmonotonic, paraconsistent, and a plausibility logic in the sense of Lehmann. (shrink)

In "Realism and Reason" Hilary Putnam has offered an apparently strong argument that the position of metaphysical realism provides an incoherent model of the relation of a correct scientific theory to the world. However, although Putnam's attack upon the notion of the "intended" interpretation of a scientific theory is sound, it is shown here that realism may be formulated in such a way that the realist need make no appeal to any "intended" interpretation of such a theory. Consequently, it (...) can be shown that realism is immune to Putnam's criticism and that attempts at reformulating this criticism are not likely to meet with success. (shrink)

Infinitary languages are used to prove that any strong isomorphism of substructures of isomorphic structures can be extended to an isomorphism of the structures. If the structures are models of a theory that has quantifier elimination, any isomorphism of substructures is strong. This theorem is a partial generalization of Steinitz’s theorem for algebraically closed fields and has as special case the analogous theorem for differentially closed fields. In this note, we announce results which will be proved elsewhere. DOI: 10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n1p107.

Ordinarily, in mathematical and scientific practice, the notion of a “theory” is understood as follows: (SCT) Standard Conception of Theories : A theory T is a collection of statements, propositions, conjectures, etc. A theory claims that things are thus and so. The theory may be true, and may be false. A theory T is true if things are as T says they are, and T is false if things are not as T says they are. One can make this Aristotelian (...) explanation more precise, as Tarski showed, in the cases where we understand how to give precise logical analyses of theories, by identifying an interpreted language L, Á) in which T may be formulated. Here L is some formalized language and Á is an L-interpretation. One can define the satisfaction relation ⊨, holding between L-sentences j and L-interpretations, and then define the notion L-sentence j is true in L, Á)” as Á ⊨ j”. What is essential about this is that theories are truth bearers . They are bearers of semantic properties. (shrink)

This paper introduces three model-theoretic constructions for generalized Epstein semantics: reducts, ultramodels and $\textsf {S}$ -sets. We apply these notions to obtain metatheoretical results. We prove connective inexpressibility by means of a reduct, compactness by an ultramodel and definability theorem which states that a set of generalized Epstein models is definable iff it is closed under ultramodels and $\textsf {S}$ -sets. Furthermore, a corollary concerning definability of a set of models by a single formula is given on the (...) basis of the main theorem and the compactness theorem. We also provide an example of a natural set of generalized Epstein models which is undefinable. Its undefinability is proven by means of an $\textsf {S}$ -set. (shrink)

A varietyV satisfies a strong Malcev condition ∃f1,…, ∃fnθ where θ is a conjunction of equations in the function variablesf1, …,fnand the individual variablesx1, …,xm, if there are polynomial symbolsp1, …,pnin the language ofVsuch that ∀x1, …,xmθ is a law ofV. Thus a strong Malcev condition involves restricted second order quantification of a strange sort. The quantification is restricted to functions which are “polynomially definable”. This notion was introduced by Malcev [6] who used it to describe those varieties all of (...) whose members have permutable congruence relations. The general formal definition of Malcev conditions is due to Grätzer [1]. Since then and especially since Jónsson's [3] characterization of varieties with distributive congruences there has been extensive study of strong Malcev conditions and the related concepts: Malcev conditions and weak Malcev conditions.In [9], Taylor gives necessary and sufficient semantic conditions for a class of varieties to be defined by a Malcev condition. A key to the proof is the translation of the restricted second order concepts into first order concepts in a certain many sorted language. In this paper we show that, given this translation, Taylor's theorem is an easy consequence of a result of Tarski [8] and the standard preservation theorems of first order logic. (shrink)

Monadic second order logic and linear temporal logic are two logical formalisms that can be used to describe classes of infinite words, i.e., first-order models based on the natural numbers with order, successor, and finitely many unary predicate symbols.Monadic second order logic over infinite words can alternatively be described as a first-order logic interpreted in${\cal P}\left$, the power set Boolean algebra of the natural numbers, equipped with modal operators for ‘initial’, ‘next’, and ‘future’ states. We prove that the first-order theory (...) of this structure is the model companion of a class of algebras corresponding to a version of linear temporal logic without until.The proof makes crucial use of two classical, nontrivial results from the literature, namely the completeness of LTL with respect to the natural numbers, and the correspondence between S1S-formulas and Büchi automata. (shrink)