Advertisement

A Cut-Free Sequent Calculus for Defeasible Erotetic Inferences

  • Jared MillsonEmail author
Article

Abstract

In recent years, the effort to formalize erotetic inferences—i.e., inferences to and from questions—has become a central concern for those working in erotetic logic. However, few have sought to formulate a proof theory for these inferences. To fill this lacuna, we construct a calculus for (classes of) sequents that are sound and complete for two species of erotetic inferences studied by Inferential Erotetic Logic (IEL): erotetic evocation and erotetic implication. While an effort has been made to axiomatize the former in a sequent system, there is currently no proof theory for the latter. Moreover, the extant axiomatization of erotetic evocation fails to capture its defeasible character and provides no rules for introducing or eliminating question-forming operators. In contrast, our calculus encodes defeasibility conditions on sequents and provides rules governing the introduction and elimination of erotetic formulas. We demonstrate that an elimination theorem holds for a version of the cut rule that applies to both declarative and erotetic formulas and that the rules for the axiomatic account of question evocation in IEL are admissible in our system.

Keywords

Erotetic logic Proof theory Sequent calculus Defeasible reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has benefited from the comments and suggestions of Andrzej Wiśniewski and two anonymous referees.

References

  1. 1.
    Belnap, N., The Logic of Questions and Answers, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bimbo, K., Proof Theory: Sequent Calculi and Related Formalisms, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brandom, R., Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen, On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives, Synthese 192(6): 1689–1728, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamblin, C. L., Questions, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36(3): 159–168, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrah, D., A logic of questions and answers, Philosophy of Science 28(1): 40–46, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hintikka, J., The semantics of questions and the questions of semantics, Acta Philosophica Fennica 28: 4, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hintikka, J., Socratic Epistemology: Explorations of Knowledge-Seeking by Questioning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karttunen, L., Syntax and semantics of questions, Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ketonen, O., Untersuchungen zum Prädikatenkalkül, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 1944, Series A 1.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kukla, R., and M. Lance, ‘Yo!’ and ‘Lo!’ : the Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leszczyńska-Jasion, D., M. Urbański, and A. Wiśniewski, Socratic trees, Studia Logica 101(5): 959–986, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meheus, J., Adaptive logics for question evocation, Logique Et Analyse 173(175): 135–164, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millson, J., How to Ask a Question in the Space of Reasons, PhD Thesis, Emory University, 2014.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Millson, J., Queries and Assertions in Minimally Discursive Practice, Proceedings of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behavior AISB’50, 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peliš, M., Inferences with Ignorance: Logics of Questions:, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2017.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piazza, M., and G. Pulcini, Uniqueness of axiomatic extensions of cut-free classical propositional logic, Logic Journal of IGPL 24(5): 708–718, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piazza, M., and G. Pulcini, Unifying logics via context-sensitiveness, Journal of Logic and Computation 27(1): 21–40, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poggiolesi, F., Gentzen Calculi for Modal Propositional Logic, Springer Netherlands, 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiśniewski, A., The Posing of Questions: Logical Foundations of Erotetic Inferences, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiśniewski, A., Socratic proofs, Journal of Philosophical Logic 33(3): 299–326, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiśniewski, A., Questions, Inferences, and Scenarios, Studies in Logic, College Publications, London, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiśniewski, A., An axiomatic account of question evocation: the propositional case, Axioms 5(4): 1–14, 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wiśniewski, A., G. Vanackere, and D. Leszczyńska, Socratic proofs and paraconsistency: a case study, Studia Logica 80(2-3): 431–466, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyAgnes Scott CollegeDecaturUSA

Personalised recommendations