A Non-classical Logical Approach to Social Software

  • Can Başkent
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 11)


The term social software was coined by Rohit Parikh in 2002. Social software can be viewed as a research program which studies the construction and verification of social procedures by using tools in logic and computer science. However, to the best of my knowledge, social software has not been considered from a non-classical logical perspective. In this paper, I argue how non-classical logical approaches can enrich, broaden and support the agenda of social software.


Social software Non-classical logics Paraconsistent logic 


  1. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  2. Ariely, D. (2010). The upside of irrationality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  3. Başkent, C., Olde Loohuis, L., & Parikh, R. (2012). On knowledge and obligation. Episteme, 9(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beall, J. C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benicort, E., & Guerrien, B. (2008). Is anything worth keeping in microeconomics? Review of Radical Political Economics, 40(3), 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brafman, O., & Brafman, R. (2008). Sway. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Brennan, J. (2011). The ethics of voting. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, L. (1983). Dialogue games. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Carmo, J., & Jones, A. J. I. (2002). Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 8, pp. 265–343). Berlin: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chisholm, R. M. (1963). Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis, 24(2), 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. da Costa, N. C. A., & Carnielli, W. A. (1986). On paraconsistent deontic logic. Philosophia, 16(3–4), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn, J. M. (1976). Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and ’coupled trees’. Philosophical Studies, 29(3), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ficara, E. (2013). Dialectic and dialetheism. History and Philosophy of Logic, 34(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullbrook, E. (Ed.). (2008). Pluralist economics. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  15. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Gut feelings. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5000 years. Brooklyn: Melville House.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, J. (2006). The paradoxes of deontic logic: Alive and kicking. Theoria, 72(3), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harford, T. (2009). Logic of life. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  19. Harsanyi, J. (1977). Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research, 44(4), 623–656.Google Scholar
  20. Hintikka, J., & Sandu, G. (1997). Game-theoretical semantics. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 361–410). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  22. Olde Loohuis, L., & Venema, Y. (2010). Logics and algebras for multiple players. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3(3), 485–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Overall, C. (2012). Why have children?. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pacuit, E., Parikh, R., & Cogan, E. (2006). The logic of knowledge based obligation. Synthese, 149(2), 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parikh, R. (1994). Vagueness and utility: The semantics of common nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parikh, R. (2002). Social software. Synthese, 132(3), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parikh, R. (2014). Epistemic reasoning in life and literature. In S. O. Hansson (Ed.), David Makinson on classical methods for non-classical problems. Outstanding Contributions to Logic (pp. 143–153). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pietarinen, A. (2000). Logic and coherence in the light of competitive games. Logique et Analyse, 43, 371–391.Google Scholar
  29. Pietarinen, A., & Sandu, G. (2000). Games in philosophical logic. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4(2), 143–173.Google Scholar
  30. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2003). Games as formal tools versus games as explanations in logic and science. Foundations of Science, 8(4), 317–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Priest, G. (1989). Dialectic and dialetheic. Science & Society, 53(4), 388–415.Google Scholar
  32. Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rahman, S., & Carnielli, W. A. (2000). The dialogical approach to paraconsistency. Synthese, 125, 201–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reardon, J. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of pluralist economics education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Routley, R., & Routley, V. (1972). The semantics of first degree entailment. Noûs, 6(4), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, Y. (2010). Econned. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. van Eijck, J., & Verbrugge, R. (Eds.). (2009). Discourses on social software. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BathBathEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations