Abstract
We identify a pervasive contrast between implicit and explicit stances in logical analysis and system design. Implicit systems change received meanings of logical constants and sometimes also the notion of consequence, while explicit systems conservatively extend classical systems with new vocabulary. We illustrate the contrast for intuitionistic and epistemic logic, then take it further to information dynamics, default reasoning, and other areas, to show its wide scope. This gives a working understanding of the contrast, though we stop short of a formal definition, and acknowledge limitations and borderline cases. Throughout we show how awareness of the two stances suggests new logical systems and new issues about translations between implicit and explicit systems, linking up with foundational concerns about identity of logical systems. But we also show how a practical facility with these complementary working styles has philosophical consequences, as it throws doubt on strong philosophical claims made by just taking one design stance and ignoring alternative ones. We will illustrate the latter benefit for the case of logical pluralism and hyper-intensional semantics.
References
Andréka, H., Bezhanishvili, N., Németi I., van Benthem, J. (2014). Changing a semantics: opportunism or courage? In Manzano, M., Sain I., Alonso, E. (Eds.) The life and work of Leon Henkin (pp. 307–337). Basel: Birkhaüser Verlag.
Artemov, S. (2007). Justification logic. Technical report TR-2007019. New York: CUNY Graduate Center.
Artemov, S., & Protopopescu, T. (2016). Intuitionistic epistemic logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9, 266–298.
Balbiani, P., & Galmiche, D. (2016). About intuitionistic public announcement logic. In Beklemishev, L., Demri S., Maté, A. (Eds.) Proceedings advances in modal logic, Budapest 2016 (pp. 58–77). London: College Publications.
Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In Bonanno, G., van der Hoek W., Wooldridge, M. (Eds.) Texts in logic and games (Vol. 3, pp. 9–58). Amsterdam University Press.
Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2011). Quantum logic as a dynamic logic. Synthese, 179:2, 285–306.
Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2017). Modeling correlated information change: from conditional beliefs to quantum conditionals. Soft Computing, 21(6), 1523–1535.
Bar-Hillel, Y., & Carnap, R. (1953). Semantic information. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4:14, 147–157.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Beall, J., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Benthem, J. (1989). Semantic parallels in natural language and computation. In Ebbinghaus, H–D, & et al. (Eds.) Logic colloquium. 1987 (pp. 331–375). NorthHolland, Amsterdam.
van Benthem, J. (1996). Modal logic as a theory of information. In Copeland, J. (Ed.) Logic and reality (pp. 135–168). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Benthem, J. (2014). Logic in games. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
van Benthem, J., Bezhanishvili, N., Holliday, W. (2017). A bimodal perspective on possibility semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 27:5, 1353–1389.
Benthem, J., & Minica, S. (2012). Toward a dynamic logic of questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(4), 633–669.
Bezhanishvili, G., & Holliday, W. (2017). A semantic hierarchy for intuitionistic logic to appear. In van Dalen, D., Klop, J.W, van Mill, J. (Eds.) Indagationes mathematicae, special issue on L. E. J. Brouwer.
Blackburn, P., Rijke, M., Venema, Y. (2000). Modal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burgess, J. (1981). Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 22(1), 76–84.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: a new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.
van Ditmarsch, H., Halpern, J., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of logics for knowledge and belief. London: College Publications.
Dosen, K. (1985). Models for stronger normal intuitionistic modal logics. Studia Logica, 44, 39–70.
Eijck, J., & de Vries, F.-J. (1992). Dynamic interpretation and hoare deduction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 1, 1–44.
Fernandez, D. (2006). A Polynomial translation of s4 into intuitionistic logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71:3, 989–1001.
Fine, K. (2017). Truthmaker semantics. In Hale, B., Wright C., Miller, A. (Eds.) A companion to the philosophy of language, 2nd Edn. (pp. 556–577). Wiley On-Line Library.
Galatos, N., & Jipsen, P. (2013). Residuated frames with applications to decida-bility. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 365, 1219–1249.
Gierasimczuk, N. (2010). Knowing one’s limits, logical analysis of inductive inference dissertation. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
Girard, P., Liu, F., Seligman, J. (2012). General dynamic dynamic logic. In Proceedings AIML Copenhagen.
Gödel, K. (1933). Eine Interpretation des intuitionistischen Aussagenkalküls. Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums, 4, 39–40.
Goré, R., & Thomson, J. (2017). A correct polynomial translation of s4 into intuitionistic logic’ logic and computation group. Canberra: Australian National University.
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.
Halvorson, H. (2017). The invariant content of equivalent theories. Department of Philosophy, Princeton University, Talk at 6th CSLI Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Intelligent Interaction, Stanford.
Hamami, Y., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Logics of questions, preface to special issue. Synthese, 192(6), 1581–1584.
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Holliday, W. (2012). Knowing what follows: epistemic closure and epistemic logic. Ph.D thesis, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University.
Hoshi, T. (2009). Epistemic dynamics and protocol information. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University (ILLC-DS-2009-08).
W. & M. Kneale. (1962). The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kocurek, A. (2018). What can you say? Measuring the expressive power of language. Dissertation, Group in Logic and the Methodology of Science, UC Berkeley.
Kuhn, S., & Weatherson, B. (2018). Notes on some ideas in Lloyd Humberstone’s philosophical applications of modal logic. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 15, 1. https://doi.org/10.26686/ajl.v15i1.4072 https://doi.org/10.26686/ajl.v15i1.4072.
Levesque, H. (1984). A logic of implicit and explicit belief. In Proceedings AAAI-84, (pp. 198–202).
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 27–39.
Miller, J., & Moss, L. (2005). The undecidability of iterated modal relativization. Studia Logica, 97, 373–407.
Olkhovikov, G. (2013). Model-theoretic characterization of intuitionistic propositional formulas. Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(2), 348–365.
Parikh, R. (1985). The logic of games. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 24, 111–140.
Putnam, H. (1968). Is logic empirical? In Cohen, R., & Wartofsky, M. (Eds.) Boston studies in the philosophy of science 5 (pp. 216–241). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Quine, W. (1951). Two Dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.
Restall, G. (2000). Substructural logics. London: Routledge.
Rodenhaüser, B. (2014). A matter of trust: dynamic attitudes in epistemic logic. Dissertation ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
Roelofsen, F., & Cardelli, I. (2015). Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese, 192(6), 1643–1687.
Rumfitt, I. (2015). The boundary stones of thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shi, Ch. (2018). Reason to believe. Dissertation DS 2018-10 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.
Shoham, Y. (1988). Reasoning about change: time and change from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stalnaker, R. (2006). On logics of knowledge and belief. Philosophical Studies, 128:1, 169–199.
Troelstra, A., & van Dalen, D. (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics, Vol. 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in upyear semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261. Also appeared in The Philosopher’s Annual, 1997.
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116, 983–1026.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on lectures at the Hans Kamp 70 conference in Stuttgart 2010, Advances in Modal Logic, Copenhagen 2012, the Heyting Conference, Amsterdam 2013, the FEW Workshop on Formal Epistemology, Seattle 2017, as well as seminar presentations in Amsterdam, Beijing, New York, and Stanford. I thank members of these audiences for their feedback, as well as the referees of this paper, and Wesley Holliday, Thomas Icard, Steve Kuhn and Sonja Smets.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
van Benthem, J. Implicit and Explicit Stances in Logic. J Philos Logic 48, 571–601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-018-9485-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-018-9485-y
Keywords
- Logic
- Modality
- Implicit
- Explicit
- Vocabulary
- Translation