Formal Philosophy

Chris Kennedy
University of Chicago

“A Neo-Fregean Semantics of Number Words”

Tuesday, January 31, 2012
4:30-6:30pm
Cobb 106

Abstract:

In this talk, I present and motivate a fully semantic and compositional analysis of scalar (“at least” vs. “at most” vs. “exactly”) readings of sentences containing numerals, in which number words introduce second-order properties of properties of quantities, and scalar readings arise through scopal interactions between number words and other constituents, rather than through implicature or pragmatic enrichment.

Nic Koziolek
University of Chicago

“Senses for Canonical Names”

Tuesday, Jan. 17
4:30-6:30 pm
Cobb 106

Background Reading:
Diana Ackerman – De Re Propositional Attitudes Toward Integers

Aidan Gray
University of Chicago

“Prospects for a Predicate Theory of Names”

Tuesday, January 10, 2012
4:30-6:30 PM
Cobb 106

Anubav Vasudevan
University of Chicago

“Symmetry and Bias:  the Exchange Paradox”

Tuesday, November 29, 2011
4:30-6:30 PM
Stuart Hall 209

The paper is available  here

Bill Tait, University of Chicago

“Another Fall from Paradise: the Problem of the Infinite”

Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011
4:30-6:30 pm
Stuart 209

Brandon Fogel, University of Chicago

“The New Black Sheep of Physics: How Bell’s Theorem gives commutativity a bad name”

Tuesday, October 10, 2011
4:30-6:30
Stuart 209

Marko Malink, University of Chicago

“Deduction in Sophistici Elenchi 6″

Tuesday, September 27
4:30-6:30
Stuart 209

The paper can be downloaded here.

“The ‘Generalization Problem’ for Deflationism”

4:30-6:20 pm, Cobb 103 (campus map)

“Modeling Epistemic Flow”

4:30-6:20 pm, Cobb 103 (campus map)

“The Wason Task(s) and the Paradox of Confirmation”

4:30-6:20 pm, Cobb 103 (campus map)

The paper may be downloaded here.

The talk’s handout may be downloaded here.

Abstract: I will sketch out the analogy between the Wason Task(s) and the Paradox of Confirmation. This will mainly involve going through some existing historical discussions concerning the analogy, and developing a precise framework for refining and critiquing the analogy. I will explain what I think is right about the existing literature, and also what I think is wrong with it (i.e., what I think the disanalogies are). Along the way, I will make various historical observations about confirmation theory and some of the contemporary evaluative assessments of the behavior of subjects faced with Wason Task(s).