The interrogative model of inquiry meets dynamic epistemic logics

Abstract

The Interrogative Model of Inquiry (IMI) and Dynamic Epistemic Logics (DELs) are two central paradigms in formal epistemology. This paper is motivated by the observation of a significant complementarity between them: on the one hand, the IMI provides a framework for investigating inquiry represented as an idealized game between an Inquirer and Nature, along with an account of the interaction between questions and inferences in information-seeking processes, but is lacking a formulation in the multi-agent case; on the other hand, DELs model various operations of information change in multi-agent systems, but the field is lacking a proper integration of question and inference dynamics, along with an application to the investigation of inquiry processes. The goal of this paper is to integrate the two paradigms in such a way as to combine their respective insights. To this end, we develop a formal system called DEL IMI which aims to represent the interaction between question and inference dynamics in inquiry-as described by the IMI-in a multi-agent setting, and this in such a way as to enable an investigation of inquiry games with multi-agent dimensions. The DEL IMI system is designed to represent the possible moves of such inquiry games through three types of epistemic actions: agents addressing questions to Nature, agents addressing questions to other agents, agents drawing logical inferences. We then show how the resulting framework can be used to formally define multi-agent inquiry games. We conclude by evaluating the interest of the DEL IMI system for the IMI and DELs paradigms.

Talking About Knowledge

“…Fiutek 2013, Hamami 2014. Learning theory and game theory fit well with the dynamic logics in this paper (cf.…”

Deduction and Reduction Theorems for Inferential Erotetic Logic

“…In order to pass to the semantic level, we first introduce the concept of partition of the set D L of d-wffs of L; the idea comes from [15]. A partition 5 We use here the term "Lindenbaum feature", instead of the more common term "Lindenbaum property", for two reasons. First, we do not consider consequence operations, but consequence relations.…”

“…Comparing these approaches is not an easy task, which has been accomplished only partially (cf. [5,14,22]). Given this, it seems quite justified to address problems by means of the conceptual apparatus of a preferred paradigm, leaving apart the ongoing foundational dispute.…”

Toward a Dynamic Logic of Questions

“…Now we must consider real questions, as asked by one agent to another. As everywhere in this paper, we restrict attention to propositional questions: 13 b asks a: 'Is ϕ the case?' Thus, real 'agency' enters when we consider the structure of question acts.…”

“…[28]). There are more instances of a duality between approaches, one "changing semantics" for some standard language resulting in 33 A first study in this comparative line is the Master's thesis [13]. 34 We cannot do full justice to this fast-growing framework here.…”