A Cut-Free Sequent Calculus for Defeasible Erotetic Inferences
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.
KeywordsErotetic logic Proof theory Sequent calculus Defeasible reasoning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This work has benefited from the comments and suggestions of Andrzej Wiśniewski and two anonymous referees.
- 1.Belnap, N., The Logic of Questions and Answers, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
- 3.Brandom, R., Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994.Google Scholar
- 5.Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1984.Google Scholar
- 8.Hintikka, J., The semantics of questions and the questions of semantics, Acta Philosophica Fennica 28: 4, 1976.Google Scholar
- 11.Ketonen, O., Untersuchungen zum Prädikatenkalkül, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 1944, Series A 1.Google Scholar
- 12.Kukla, R., and M. Lance, ‘Yo!’ and ‘Lo!’ : the Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2009.Google Scholar
- 14.Meheus, J., Adaptive logics for question evocation, Logique Et Analyse 173(175): 135–164, 2001.Google Scholar
- 15.Millson, J., How to Ask a Question in the Space of Reasons, PhD Thesis, Emory University, 2014.Google Scholar
- 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.Peliš, M., Inferences with Ignorance: Logics of Questions:, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2017.Google Scholar
- 20.Poggiolesi, F., Gentzen Calculi for Modal Propositional Logic, Springer Netherlands, 2016.Google Scholar
- 23.Wiśniewski, A., Questions, Inferences, and Scenarios, Studies in Logic, College Publications, London, 2013.Google Scholar
- 24.Wiśniewski, A., An axiomatic account of question evocation: the propositional case, Axioms 5(4): 1–14, 2016.Google Scholar