Philosophical Studies

, Volume 128, Issue 1, pp 49–76 | Cite as

Epistemic Logic and Epistemology: The State of their Affairs

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arlo-Costa, H. (2005): ‘First-Order Modal Logic’, to appear in V. Hendricks and S. A. Pedersen (eds.), 40 Years of Possible Worlds, special issue of Studia LogicaGoogle Scholar
  2. Artemov, S. 1994‘Logic of Proofs’Annals of Pure and Applied Logic672959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artemov, S 2005Evidence-Based Common KnowledgeNew YorkCUNY Graduate CenterGoogle Scholar
  4. Aucher, G. (2003): A Joint System of Update Logic and Belief Revision, Master of Logic Thesis, ILLC University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltag, A., Moss, L. and Solecki, S. (1998): ‘The Logic of Public Announcements, Common Knowledge and Private Suspicions’, Proceedings TARK 1998, 43–56, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los AltosGoogle Scholar
  6. Barwise, J., Perry, J. 1983Situations and AttitudesThe MIT PressCambridge (Mass)Google Scholar
  7. Barwise, J., Seligman, J. 1995Logic and Information FlowCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Benthem, J. 1993‘Reflections on Epistemic Logic’Logique et Analyse34514(TARK lecture)Google Scholar
  9. van Benthem, J. (2002a): ‘One is a Lonely Number: on the Logic of Communication’, Report PP–2002–27, ILLC Amsterdam. To appear in P. Koepke et al., (eds.), Colloquium Logicum, Providence: AMS PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. van Benthem, J. (2002b): ‘Rational Dynamics’, in S. Vannucci, (ed.), Logic, Game Theory and Social Choice III, University of Siena, Department of Political Economy, 19–23. To appear in International Journal of Game Theory Google Scholar
  11. van Benthem, J. (2003): ‘Logic and the Dynamics of Information’, in L. Floridi, (ed.), Minds and Machines 13(4), 503–519Google Scholar
  12. van Benthem, J. (2004a): ‘Information as Correlation versus Information as Range’, manuscript, ILLC, University of Amsterdam. To appear in L. Moss. (ed.), Memorial Volume for Jon BarwiseGoogle Scholar
  13. Benthem, J. 2004b‘What One What One May Come to Know’Analysis6495105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Benthem, J. (2005a): ‘Open Problems in Logical Dynamics’, ILLC Preprint:, Institute for Logic, Language and Information, University of Amsterdam, DARE electronic archive 148382. To appear in D. Gabbay, S. Goncharov and M. Zakharyashev (eds.), Mathematical Problems from Applied Logic, Novosibirsk: Russian Academy of Sciences & New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. van Benthem, J. (2005b): ‘The Epistemic Logic of IF Games’, in L. Hahn, (ed.), Jaakko Hintikka, Library of Living Philosophers, Southern Illinois University, Carus PublishersGoogle Scholar
  16. van Benthem, J. (2006): ‘Actions that Make Us Know’, to appear in J. Salerno, (ed.), The Fitch Paradox, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Benthem, J.ter Meulen, A. eds. 1997Handbook of Logic and LanguageElsevierAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Benthem, J., Muskens, R., Visser, A. 1997

    ‘Dynamics’

    Benthem, J.ter Meulen, A. eds. Handbook of Logic and LanguageElsevier Science PublishersAmsterdam587648
    Google Scholar
  19. Bratman, M. 1992‘Shared Cooperative Activity’The Philosophical Review101327341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Bruin, B. (2004): Explaining Games. On the Logic of Game-Theoretic Explanations, Dissertation DS 2004–03, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Does, J. (1992): Applied Quantifier Logics. Collectives and Naked Infinitives, Dissertation, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Dretske, F. 1981Knowledge and the Flow of InformationChicago University PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Dretske, F. 2004‘Externalism and Modest Contextualism’Erkenntnis61173186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Egré, P. (2004): Attitudes propositionnelles et paradoxes épistémiques. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, IHPSTGoogle Scholar
  25. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M. 1995Reasoning About KnowledgeThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Gabbay, D. 1996Labelling Deductive SystemsClarendonOxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Gärdenfors, P. 1987Knowledge in FluxThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Gärdenfors, P., Rott, H. 1995

    ‘‘Belief Revision’’

    Gabbay, D.M.Hogger, C.J.Robinson, J.A. eds. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 4Oxford University PressOxford
    Google Scholar
  29. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. 1991‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’Linguistics and Philosophy1439100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halpern, J., Vardi, M. 1989‘The Complexity of Reasoning about Knowledge and Time’Journal of Computer and Systems Science38195237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J. 2000Dynamic LogicThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Hendricks, V. (2002): ‘Active Agents’, PHILOG Newsletter, Roskilde. in J. van Benthem and R. van Rooy (eds.), Special issue on Information Theories, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(4), 469–495Google Scholar
  33. Hendricks, V. 2005Mainstream and Formal EpistemologyCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Hintikka, J. (1962), Knowledge and Belief, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Reprint 2005, V. Hendricks and J. Symons (eds.), London: King’s College PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  35. Hintikka, J., Sandu, G. 1997

    ‘Game-Theoretical Semantics’

    Benthem, J.ter Meulen, A. eds. Handbook of Logic and LanguageElsevierAmsterdam361410
    Google Scholar
  36. Kamp, H., Reyle, U. 1993From Logic to DiscourseKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly, K. 1996The Logic of Reliable InquiryOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelly, K. 2002Knowledge as Reliable Inferred Stable True BeliefDepartment of Philosophy Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, J.Sosa, E. eds. 2000Epistemology: An AnthologyBlackwellMalden, MAGoogle Scholar
  40. Klein, P. 1993Epistemology, Routledge Encyclopedia of PhilosophyRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Landman, F. (1989): ‘Groups I, Groups II’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605, and 723–744Google Scholar
  42. Leitgeb, H. (2004): ‘Carnap’s Logischer Aufbau Revisited’, Department of Philosophy, University of SalzburgGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenzen, W. (1980): Glauben, Wissen und Wahrscheinlichkeit. Springer Verlag, Wien, Library of Exact PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, D. 1969ConventionBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. McCarthy, J. (1993): ‘Notes on Formalizing Context’,Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’93) Google Scholar
  46. Nozick, R. 1981Philosophical ExplanationsHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Osborne, M., Rubinstein, A. 1994A Course in Game TheoryThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Pauly, M. (2001): Logic for Social Software, Dissertation DS-2001–10, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  49. Skyrms, B. 1990The Dynamics of Rational DeliberationHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  50. Smullyan, R. 1997The Tao is SilentHarper & RowNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Spaan, E. (1993):Complexity of Pure and Applied Intensional Logics, Dissertation, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  52. Spohn, W. 1988

    ‘Ordinal Conditional Functions. A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States’

    Harper, W.L.Skyrms, B. eds. Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and StatisticsKluwerDordrecht105134
    Google Scholar
  53. Stalnaker, R. 1999‘Extensive and Strategic Form: Games and Models for Games’Research in Economics5393291Google Scholar
  54. Veltman, F. 1996‘Defaults in Update Semantics’Journal of Philosophical Logic22221261Google Scholar
  55. Williamson, T. 2000Knowledge and its LimitsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  56. Wooldridge, M. 2002An Introduction to Multi-Agent SystemsJohn WileyColchesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations