We investigate what happens when 'truth' is replaced with 'provability' in Yablo's paradox. By diagonalization, appropriate sequences of sentences can be constructed. Such sequences contain no sentence decided by the background consistent and sufficiently strong arithmetical theory. If the provability predicate satisfies the derivability conditions, each such sentence is provably equivalent to the consistency statement and to the Gödel sentence. Thus each two such sentences are provably equivalent to each other. The same holds for the arithmetization of the existential Yablo paradox. We also look at a formulation which employs Rosser's provability predicate.

No abstract

This article presents a quasi‐experimental intervention study designed to reduce the level of verbal aggression on a social networking service (Reddit). The interventions were based on three psychological mechanisms: induction of a descriptive norm, induction of a prescriptive norm, and empathy induction. Each intervention was generated using a communicating bot. Participants exposed to these interventions were compared with a control group that received no intervention. The bot‐generated normative communications (both the ones priming descriptive and the ones priming prescriptive norms), as well as the empathizing intervention, reduced the proportion of verbal aggression posted by Reddit accounts. All three interventions proved effective in reducing verbal violence when compared with the control condition.

Legal probabilism is the view that juridical fact-finding should be modeled using Bayesian methods. One of the alternatives to it is the narration view, according to which instead we should conceptualize the process in terms of competing narrations of what (allegedly) happened. The goal of this paper is to develop a reconciliatory account, on which the narration view is construed from the Bayesian perspective within the framework of formal Bayesian epistemology.

Mathematicians prove theorems in a semi-formal setting, providing what we’ll call informal proofs. There are various philosophical reasons not to reduce informal provability to formal provability within some appropriate axiomatic theory (Leitgeb, 2009; Marfori, 2010; Tanswell, 2015), but the main worry is that we seem committed to all instances of the so-called reflection schema: B(φ) → φ (where B stands for the informal provability predicate). Yet, adding all its instances to any theory for which Löb’s theorem for B holds leads to inconsistency.Currently existing approaches (Shapiro, 1985; Horsten, 1996, 1998) to formalizing the properties of informal provability avoid contradiction at a rather high price. They either drop one of the Hilbert-Bernays conditions for the provability predicate, or use a provability operator that cannot consistently be treated as a predicate.Inspired by (Kripke, 1975), we investigate the strategy which changes the underlying logic and treats informal provability as a partial notion. We use non-deterministic matrices to develop a three-valued logic of informal provability, which avoids some of the above mentioned problems.

The goal is to sketch a nominalist approach to mathematics which just like neologicism employs abstraction principles, but unlike neologicism is not committed to the idea that mathematical objects exist and does not insist that abstraction principles establish the reference of abstract terms. It is well-known that neologicism runs into certain philosophical problems and faces the technical difficulty of finding appropriate acceptability criteria for abstraction principles. I will argue that a modal and iterative nominalist approach to abstraction principles circumvents those difficulties while still being able to put abstraction principles to a foundational use.

One of the standard views on plural quantification is that its use commits one to the existence of abstract objects-sets. On this view claims like 'some logicians admire only each other' involve ineliminable quantification over subsets of a salient domain. The main motivation for this view is that plural quantification has to be given some sort of semantics, and among the two main candidates-substitutional and set-theoretic-only the latter can provide the language of plurals with the desired expressive power (given that the nominalist seems committed to the assumption that there can be at most countably many names). To counter this approach I develop a modal-substitutional semantics of plural quantification (on which plural variables, roughly speaking, range over ways names could be) and argue for its nominalistic acceptability.

The main focus of this paper is to develop an adaptive formal apparatus capable of capturing arguments conducted within a conceptual framework. I first explain one of the most recent theories of concepts developed by cognitivists, in which a crucial part is played by the notion of a dynamic frame. Next, I describe how a dynamic frame may be captured by a finite set of formulas and how a formalized adaptive framework for reasoning within a dynamic frame can be developed.