A Dynamic Logic of Interrogative Inquiry

Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 8)

Abstract

We propose a dynamic-epistemic analysis of the different epistemic operations constitutive of the process of interrogative inquiry, as described by Hintikka’s Interrogative Model of Inquiry (IMI). We develop a dynamic logic of questions for representing interrogative steps, based on Hintikka’s treatment of questions in the IMI, along with a dynamic logic of inferences for representing deductive steps, based on the tableau method. We then merge these two systems into a dynamic logic of interrogative inquiry which articulates a joint treatment of questions and inferences, providing thereby a unified framework representing the informational dynamics of interrogative inquiry. We provide sound and complete axiomatic systems for the three dynamic logics that we introduce, we compare our framework with existing approaches, and we finally propose several directions for further work.

Keywords

Interrogative model of inquiry Dynamic epistemic logic Question Inference 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has been presented at the Interrogative Model of Inquiry Seminar in Paris (France, September 2011), the Questions, Games, Logic Workshop in Amsterdam (the Netherlands, December 2011) and the Trends in Logic XI Conference in Bochum (Germany, June 2012). I would like to thank the audiences of these events for helpful feedback and comments. I have benefited from discussions of this work with Johan van Benthem, Can Başkent, Emmanuel Genot, Eric Pacuit, Ştefan Minică, Gabriel Sandu, and Fernando Velázquez-Quesada. I am particularly grateful to Fernando Velázquez-Quesada for suggesting many substantial improvements on an earlier version of this paper. Finally, I am thankful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The author of this paper acknowledges support from a doctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO).

References

  1. Ågotnes, T., van Benthem, J., van Ditmarsch, H., & Minica, S. (2011). Question–answer games. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 21(3–4), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning: Logical investigations into discovery and explanation (Synthese library, Vol. 330). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK 98) (pp. 43–56).Google Scholar
  4. van Benthem, J. (2008). Tell it like it is: Information flow in logic. Journal of Peking University (Humanities and Social Science Edition), 1, 80–90.Google Scholar
  5. van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. van Benthem, J., & Minică, Ş. (2012). Toward a dynamic logic of questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(4), 633–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. van Benthem, J., & Velázquez-Quesada, F. (2010). The dynamics of awareness. Synthese, 177, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Hoshi, T., & Pacuit, E. (2009). Merging frameworks for interaction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(5), 491–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn, P., De Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2002). Modal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese, 192(6), 1643–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collingwood, R. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. D’Agostino, M. (1999). Tableau methods for classical propositional logic. In M. D’Agostino, D. Gabbay, R. Haehnle, & J. Posegga (Eds.), Handbook of tableau methods (pp. 45–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic (Synthese library, Vol. 337). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Genot, E. (2009). The game of inquiry: The interrogative approach to inquiry and belief revision theory. Synthese, 171(2), 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerbrandy, J., & Groeneveld, W. (1997). Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055–1124). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrah, D. (1984). The logic of questions. In: D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 2, pp. 715–764). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hintikka, J. (1976). The semantics of questions and the questions of semantics: Case studies in the interrelations of logic, semantics, and syntax. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 28(4).Google Scholar
  20. Hintikka, J. (1988). What is the logic of experimental inquiry? Synthese, 74(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hintikka, J. (1999). Inquiry as inquiry: A logic of scientific discovery (Jaakko Hintikka selected papers, Vol. 5). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hintikka, J., Halonen, I., & Mutanen, A. (1999). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In Inquiry as inquiry: A logic of scientific discovery (pp. 47–90). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly, K. (1996). The logic of reliable inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Peliš, M., & Majer, O. (2011). Logic of questions and public announcements. In N. Bezhanishvili, S. Löbner, K. Schwabe, & L. Spada (Eds.), Eighth international Tbilisi symposium on logic, language and computation (2009) (Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 145–157).Google Scholar
  26. Plaza, J. (1989). Logics of public communications. In M. Emrich, M. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, & Z. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems (pp. 201–216).Google Scholar
  27. Smullyan, R. (1968). First-order logic. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Velázquez-Quesada, F. (2009). Inference and update. Synthese (Knowledge, Rationality and Action), 169(2), 283–300.Google Scholar
  29. Wiśniewski, A. (1995). The posing of questions: Logical foundations of erotetic inferences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations