BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Philosophy events - ECPv6.16.3//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Philosophy events
X-ORIGINAL-URL:/philevents
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Philosophy events
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20230326T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20231029T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240605T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240605T170000
DTSTAMP:20260615T025050
CREATED:20240506T050858Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240605T065737Z
UID:10002060-1717599600-1717606800@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Metaphysics and Logic Seminar: NO MEETING
DESCRIPTION:No meeting due to the concurrent CEPPA Fest.
URL:/philevents/event/metaphysics-and-logic-seminar-viviane-fairbank-university-of-st-andrews-and-university-of-stirling/
LOCATION:Edgecliffe G03 and via MS Teams
CATEGORIES:Metaphysics and Logic group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240612T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240612T170000
DTSTAMP:20260615T025050
CREATED:20240513T052557Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240611T081018Z
UID:10002072-1718204400-1718211600@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Metaphysics and Logic Seminar: Isaac Wilhelm (National University of Singapore)
DESCRIPTION:Title: Talk About Types \nAbstract: Many metaphysical theories of identity\, existence\, and so on\, are formulated using higher-order languages like the simply typed lambda calculus. But as I argue\, for the purposes of metaphysical theorizing\, a different language would be better: the calculus of constructions. Since this language—like many pure type systems—allows for quantification over types\, it is preferable to the languages currently being used in the philosophical literature. For the purposes of metaphysical theorizing\, in other words\, the calculus of constructions is the better language.
URL:/philevents/event/metaphysics-and-logic-seminar-isaac-wilhelm-national-university-of-singapore/
CATEGORIES:Metaphysics and Logic group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240619T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240619T170000
DTSTAMP:20260615T025050
CREATED:20240520T055425Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240619T090055Z
UID:10002081-1718809200-1718816400@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Metaphysics and Logic Seminar x FPST Seminar: Marta Sznajder (University of Vienna)
DESCRIPTION:Janina Hosiasson’s logic of rational degrees of belief: subjective probability before and after Ramsey \nAbstract: \nIn 1931\, Janina Hosiasson-Lindenbaum proposed a proto-decision-theoretic answer to the value of evidence problem\, originally posed by C. D. Broad and eventually solved by I. J. Good in the context of Savage’s decision theory. As an influence on her paper she credited Frank Ramsey\, whose then unpublished “Truth and Probability” she had read shortly after Ramsey’s death in 1930. But Hosiasson also insisted that she had “previously thought independently on similar lines”. \nThis raises two questions. First\, what is it exactly that Hosiasson-Lindenbaum took herself to be in agreement on with Ramsey\, or what part of her approach has been inspired by his paper? And second: what did she “previously [think] independently”? In the talk\, I will try to answer the two questions\, drawing on Hosiasson-Lindenbaum’s work published before her contact with Ramsey’s work\, as well as shortly after (and which has not received any attention to date). \nThis reconstruction of Hosiasson’s early philosophical views contributes to our understanding of how the different philosophical interpretations of probability that took shape in the first half of the 20th century developed in their early stages. Hosiasson  eventually saw herself as working on the logic of rational degrees of belief\, and was not invested in any external justifications of the rules of such logic\, especially ones which would ground it through pragmatic arguments. At the same time\, while she built on Keynes’s formal results about a posteriori probabilities\, Hosiasson does not appear to have taken on board his interpretation of probability as an objective\, semantic relation the access to which is direct\, but not always possible. Hosiasson turns out to be much closer in her approach to what we have come to think of the late stages of Rudolf Carnap’s inductive logic project—which is an interesting footnote to the history of the field\, given the influence that late Hosiassson’s work had on the early inductive logic of Carnap.
URL:/philevents/event/metaphysics-and-logic-seminar-x-fpst-seminar-marta-sznajder-university-of-vienna/
LOCATION:Edgecliffe G03 and via MS Teams
CATEGORIES:Metaphysics and Logic group,Philosophy & Social Theory Arché Seminar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240626T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240626T170000
DTSTAMP:20260615T025050
CREATED:20240527T060848Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240626T092826Z
UID:10002088-1719414000-1719421200@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Metaphysics and Logic Seminar: Shawn Simpson (University of Pittsburgh)
DESCRIPTION:Title: ‘Logic and Inference in the Sender-Receiver Model’ \nAbstract: Logic\, inference\, language – somehow these are all connected. But how? One of David Lewis’s goals in his book Convention (1969) was to answer this question. There\, he presented what is now known as the sender-receiver model of communication\, and he revealed how conventionally meaningful communication might come about. Many who held a conventionalist theory of meaning\, however\, also supported a conventionalist theory of logic. In this talk\, I’ll investigate the nature of logic and inference from the point of view of the new model. The first part of the talk will introduce the model and some of its details. The second part will be a survey of work on logic that’s been done with the model so far. The third part of the talk will look at a new signaling game that involves agents following rules of a non-classical logic. I’ll finish with a discussion of the implications of this way of looking at logic and related issues and ideas for future lines of research.
URL:/philevents/event/metaphysics-and-logic-seminar-tba-29/
LOCATION:Edgecliffe G03 and via MS Teams
CATEGORIES:Metaphysics and Logic group
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR