Search

Chalmers’s two-dimensional argument against materialism (aka the zombie argument) is arguably the most ingenious attempt to ground a view about fundamental reality on epistemic considerations. From the conceivability of a being that is physically identical to a conscious being but that is deprived of phenomenal consciousness (a zombie), the argument draws on the interplay of the primary and the second intensions of the zombie hypothesis to infer the metaphysical possibility of a zombie world, and thus the falsity of physicalism about phenomenality. By means of a detailed reconstruction of the two-dimensional argument, the paper tries to isolate its most central assumption: that the role played by an epistemic scenario (an intentional object) in the verification of the zombie hypothesis is played by a nonintentionally individuated metaphysical world (the zombie world) considered as actual. The paper argues that no non-viciously circular case for this assumption has been made. Thus, the two-dimensional argument is at best inconclusive.

The subject of this essay is the classical problem of induction, which is sometimes attributed to David Hume and called “the Humean Problem of Induction.” Here, I examine a certain sort of Neo-Aristotelian solution to the problem, which appeals to the concept of natural kinds in its response to the inductive skeptic. This position is most notably represented by Howard Sankey and Marc Lange. The purpose of this paper is partly destructive and partly constructive. I raise two questions. The first is: Are the natural kind solutions to the problem successful? The first thesis of this paper is that they are not, and I will show how and why they fail. And the second question I raise here is: Is there nonetheless some alternative Neo-Aristotelian solution to the problem which is successful and can overcome the shortcomings endemic to the Sankey-Lange account? The second thesis is that there is, and I’ll attempt to sketch one. My stance here may be summarized by saying that, while I agree with Sankey and Lange that the problem of induction can be adequately resolved, and while I am on the whole sympathetic with the Aristotelian spirit of their account(s), I am, for all that, dissatisfied with the letter of them. Nothing short of a more thoroughgoing Aristotelianism about the epistemology of induction will do.

In this paper we will briefly explain the context in which the appropriation of 500 children occurred during the most recent Argentinian dictatorship, in order to analyze the political demand of identity restitution of these people. We will describe the phenomenon of restitution that took place thanks to the strategy of Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, and we will analyze both the role of genetics on the restitution as well as some criticisms to a notion of biological identity considered to emerge from it. We will situate those criticisms in the philosophical debate over personal identity. The main purpose of this paper is to offer two arguments against an alleged genetic notion of personal identity. Firstly, a theoretical argument presents reasons on the basis of contemporary biological knowledge and, secondly, a practical argument refers to the productive role of biotechnologies. Finally, we will discuss some problems that arise from the criticisms themselves in order to give reasons for a defense of the restitution demand.

This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.

Determinism is a doctrine or assumption best defined in the realm of the natural sciences. In this paper I explain in detail the four senses of determinism, from the most fundamental metaphysical sense, to the most complex epistemic (predictive) sense. I take as a starting point the analysis of determinism offered by Stephen Kellert. Each of these senses is then expounded and commented with a view to explore some of the implications of each of them in theoretical physics. The most important of my tasks in this paper is to differentiate between the metaphysical and epistemic consequences of the deterministic assumption. My objective is to show that determinism as an ontological tenet is capable of withstanding criticism, even though predictive determinism is likely to be false.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the sense in which laws of physics are contingent. It argues, first, that contemporary Humean accounts cannot adequately explain the contingency of physical laws; and second, that Hume’s own arguments against the metaphysical necessity of causal connections are not applicable in this context. The paper concludes by arguing that contingency is an essentially emergent, macroscopic phenomenon: we can understand the contingency of fundamental physical laws only through their relation to the distribution of macroscopic modal properties in the manifest world.

This paper applies methods and concepts of Global and Transnational History to reflect on the Asian-African Conference of Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955, as an emblematic case of the global relations behind the appropriation and meaning of denominations such as Third World and Afro-Asian movement. We believe in the potentiality of this event for the construction of connected narratives. Disputes over the place of leadership, external participation to the group officially represented, as well as the repercussions and efforts to insert the event into non-Statewise mobilization agendas such as Pan-Africanism are approached through sources produced during the Congress, as well as through articles by the press and analysts. Ultimately, this paper argues for the importance of complexifying the analysis of the participants of international politics introduced by the Afro-Asian Conference, problematizing categories normally accepted as dominant for political action in the period and broadening the perception of the field of International Relations as a whole.

The problem of understanding how statistical inference is, and can be, applied in empirical sciences is important for the methodology of science. It is the objective of this paper to gain a better understanding of the role of statistical methods in scientific modeling. The important question of whether the applicability reduces to the representational properties of statistical models is discussed. It will be shown that while the answer to this question is positive, representation in statistical models is not purely structural. In spite of the fact that representation in statistical models is based on the structural similarities between the statistical model and the empirical systems under study, these relationships are shown to be appropriate for representing relations in the target system by agent function, too. A second aspect of the paper involves the claim that agent-based components of statistical modeling are: a) interpretation of random variables, b) selection of the goal of statistical research, and c) selection of estimator properties. To justify these claims, a preliminary discussion will be presented on the role of statistics in modeling, as in regression and other structural models. This role will be explored and realized using a structural viewpoint. Also the role of statistical estimation in statistical modeling is discussed to explain the representational role of models and the inferential role of the agent in modeling.

This paper argues that naturalistic philosophy does not meet its own empiricist mandate. It argues from an empiricist perspective. Naturalists either claim that philosophy is like science in significant ways, or they claim that philosophy ought to be like science. This paper, being chiefly focused on the former claim, argues that naturalistic philosophy is nothing like science. Using Papineau’s markers for the similarities between naturalistic philosophy and science, I argue, counter Papineau, that the method employed in naturalistic philosophy is not a posteriori and its claims are certainly not synthetic in the same way as that of science. This methodological distinction between science and philosophy is one made by Carnap. To show how the methods are distinct I compare two papers; I compare the method employed by Andy Clark in his philosophical paper on the brain as a prediction error minimisation machine with that employed by Rees and Haynes in their neuroscientific paper on mental content.

The main objective of this paper is to analyze, within the alfonsine juridical work of the Siete Partidas, how marriage is presented and conceived, and how the enunciation and ordination of the norms give it a special meaning and a central place inside this juridical work. This ordination is not fortuitous, and, in the contrary, it builds a speech that supports and legitimates royal function. The main documental source consulted for this paper was the fourth book of the Siete Partidas, specifically dedicated to matrimonial laws.

In different papers, Carnielli, W. & Rodrigues, A. (2012), Carnielli, W. Coniglio, M. & Rodrigues, A. (2017) and Rodrigues & Carnielli, (2016) present two logics motivated by the idea of capturing contradictions as conflicting evidence. The first logic is called BLE (the Basic Logic of Evidence) and the second—that is a conservative extension of BLE—is named LETJ (the Logic of Evidence and Truth). Roughly, BLE and LETJ are two non-classical (paraconsistent and paracomplete) logics in which the Laws of Explosion (EXP) and Excluded Middle (PEM) are not admissible. LETJ is built on top of BLE. Moreover, LETJ is a Logic of Formal Inconsistency (an LFI). This means that there is an operator that, roughly speaking, identifies a formula as having classical behavior. Both systems are motivated by the idea that there are different conditions for accepting or rejecting a sentence of our natural language. So, there are some special introduction and elimination rules in the theory that are capturing different conditions of use. Rodrigues & Carnielli’s paper has an interesting and challenging idea. According to them, BLE and LETJ are incompatible with dialetheia. It seems to show that these paraconsistent logics cannot be interpreted using truth-conditions that allow true contradictions. In short, BLE and LETJ talk about conflicting evidence avoiding to talk about gluts. I am going to argue against this point of view. Basically, I will firstly offer a new interpretation of BLE and LETJ that is compatible with dialetheia. The background of my position is to reject the one canonical interpretation thesis: the idea according to which a logical system has one standard interpretation. Then, I will secondly show that there is no logical basis to fix that Rodrigues & Carnielli’s interpretation is the canonical way to establish the content of logical notions of BLE and LETJ . Furthermore, the system LETJ captures inside classical logic. Then, I am also going to use this technical result to offer some further doubts about the one canonical interpretation thesis.

In the field of logics of formal inconsistency (LFIs), the notion of “consistency” is frequently too broad to draw decisive conclusions with respect to the validity of many theses involving the consistency connective. In this paper, we consider the matter of the axiom (cc)0—i.e., the schema ◦ ◦ϕ—by considering its interpretation in contexts in which “consistency” is understood as a type of verifiability. This paper suggests that such an interpretation is implicit in two extracanonical LFIs—Sören Halldén’s nonsense-logic C and Graham Priest’s cointuitionistic logic daC—drawing some interesting conclusions concerning the status of (cc)0. Initially, we discuss Halldén’s skepticism of this axiom and provide a plausible counterexample to its validity. We then discuss the interpretation of the operator in Priest’s daC and show the equivalence of (cc)0 to the intuitionistic principle of testability. These observations suggest that it may be fruitful for members of the LFI community to look outside the canon for evidence concerning the adoption of principles like (cc)0.

This paper argues for a version of perspectival realism as to abstract objects. Differently from bodies and mental states, abstract realities are supposed to be always unobservable objects, things never given in perception. Contrary to this received view, this paper tries to show that abstract objects can be perceived, even though people aren’t currently aware of perceiving them. Moreover, in order to perceive abstract objects we must be accordingly equipped. Our equipment to perceive abstract objects involves not only retino-cortical elements, but mental and cultural conditions as well.

Desmond and Moore point out that the key to understanding Darwin’s The Descent of Man is his abolitionist motivation and his advocacy that races constitute subspecies. Roberta Millstein raises some doubts about the importance of this motivation. She points out that the inclusion of the extensive section devoted to non-human animals is not justified by Darwin’s treatment of humans per se, because his explanation of the origin of races is peculiar. In this sense, she argues that Darwin’s specific explanation of the origin of races does not confirm the central importance that Desmond and Moore give to Darwin’s abolitionism. In this paper I have two different aims. On the one hand, to show that the human case actually is based on the treatment of nonhuman animals, and consequently, Darwin’s argument is not as poor as Millstein believes. My second goal, taking Millstein’s challenge seriously, is to show that Darwin’s explanation of the origin of races does confirm the Desmond and Moore thesis in a deeper sense than the one they propose themselves. For the anti-slavery motivation could not only explain the fact that Darwin sees all humans as forming the same species, but the specific explanation he gives for the origin of races.

Archives are an organized body of documents related to an institution, resulting from a professional activity, or are produced or received by this same institution, thus becoming preserved documents. When dwelling into archives and checking documents, the historian proposes to track the past, often facing silent regions that can take one to other historical narratives, some of which value the unsaid. Based on these assumptions, this paper analyses the trajectory of the writer and jurist Darcy Azambuja as contributor to the literary magazine Província de São Pedro, and debates his presence (or his absence) in A História da Literatura do Rio Grande do Sul (1956), by the historian Guilhermino Cesar. In this way, recovering some of the history of the Província de São Pedro Magazine, this paper addresses the participation of Azambuja not only in the magazine, but also in the literary history scene of Rio Grande do Sul.

In this paper I focus my attention on the proposal given by Howard Wettstein in 1980 to the cognitive phenomenon stated by Gottlob Frege in his paper “On sense and reference”. I offer three arguments in order to show that his answer does not weaken this phenomenon. Particularly, I defend three ideas: first, it is legitimate that philosophical semantics, in contrast with what Wettstein defends, provides an answer to the cognitive phenomenon; second, Wettstein does not conceive Frege’s argument correctly by considering it generates a semantic theory from a purely mentalist phenomenon; third, the explanation supplied by Wettstein is assumed by Frege when he states the phenomenon.

This brief paper is devoted to criticizing the widespread reading of Kant’s first Critique, according to which reference to subject-independent objects is “constituted” by higherorder cognitive abilities (concepts). Let us call this the “constitutional view”. In this paper, I argue that the constitutional reading confuses the un-Kantian problem of how we come to represent objects (which I call the intentionality thesis), with the quite different problem of how we cognize (erkennen) (which I call the “cognition thesis”) that we do represent objects, that is, things that exist independently of the subject.

Arguing from inductive risk, Heather Douglas tried to show that the ideal of value-free science is completely unfounded. The argument has been widely acknowledged to be a strong argument against the ideal. In this paper, beginning with an analysis of the concept of an ideal, we argue that the value-free ideal is an epistemic ideal rather than a practical or ethical ideal. Then, we aim to show that the argument from inductive risk cannot be employed against the value-free ideal as far as it is understood as an epistemic ideal. We try to show that the argument takes practical and ethical limitations of actual scientific enterprise into account to undermine the value-free ideal. But employing non-epistemic considerations makes the argument impotent against an epistemic ideal.

The paper explores a Fregean inspired conception on what concerns the nature of logical laws. A basic idea is that logic must ‘take care of itself’, i.e., nothing topic-specific could play the role of ground for a logical law. In this Fregean mood, we’ll see as isolating logical laws requires to separate being true from taken to be true. Such a path will lead us through a discussion on the role of representation in its relation to the true and the false. Logic’s proper justification (proof) concerns returning to more basic truths, but justifying such truths is something beyond its scope. According to Frege, logical laws are grounded solely on being true, which brings us back to the question about these laws’ relation to topic-specific matters, as well as their revision.

This paper compares the claims about our knowledge of the external world presented by Rudolf Carnap, in the book known as the Aufbau, to those of Clarence Irving Lewis, in Mind and the World-Order. This comparison is made in terms of the opposition to Kantian epistemology that both books establish; the Aufbau is regarded as the peak of the logicist tradition and Mind and the World-Order is taken in continuity with pragmatism. It is found that both books present knowledge of the external world as a consequence of a structural organization of human experience. However, there is an important point of divergence: the concept of verification each author adopts is different, such a concept was even a matter of discussion between Lewis and the Vienna Circle. This paper shows this disagreement but also shows how Carnap changed his point of view in the decade after the Aufbau was published, towards a standpoint which is much closer to Lewis’s ideas. In that process, nevertheless, Carnap changed his focus and did not deal with the problem of the external world anymore. This paper also seeks to draw attention to some features of the relation between Carnap and the pragmatist tradition which have only recently started to attract interest.

The Cartesian skeptic’s strategy is to tell a story about the world that is entirely consistent with all of the empirical evidence that we do, or can, have, but according to which many or all of our ordinary beliefs are false. He then suggests that, since we cannot show that his story is false, we ought to surrender those beliefs. In this paper I offer a decisiontheoretic response to skepticism. Say that a cognitive attitude is a propositional attitude that may be true or false. I argue that rejecting the skeptic’s story, and so retaining our ordinary opinions, will yield for us true cognitive attitudes, no matter whether the skeptic’s story is true or false, and that the best any alternative can do is yield no cognitive attitudes at all. Hence, it is rational to retain our ordinary opinions. One may be concerned that I can maintain this surprising conclusion because the cognitive attitudes at issue are not real beliefs, and do not represent the real world. I conclude the paper by arguing that this concern is misplaced.

When adopting a sound logical system, reasonings made within this system are correct. The situation with reasonings expressed, at least in part, with natural language is much more ambiguous. One way to be certain of the correctness of these reasonings is to provide a logical model of them. To conclude that a reasoning process is correct we need the logical model to be faithful to the reasoning. In this case, the reasoning inherits, so to speak, the correctness of the logical model. There is a weak link in this procedure, which we call the faithfulness problem: how do we decide that the logical model is faithful to the reasoning that it is supposed to model? That is an issue external to logic, and we do not have rigorous formal methods to make the decision. The purpose of this paper is to expose the faithfulness problem (not to solve it). For that purpose, we will consider two examples, one from the geometrical reasoning in Euclid’s Elements and the other from a study on deductive reasoning in the psychology of reasoning.

It has been proposed that disjunction has seven possible interpretations. Thus, it has been claimed that, in addition to the exclusive and inclusive ones, there are five more types of disjunctions. This paper analyzes those seven kinds of disjunction under Carnap’s approach. The goal is to find examples of L-true sentences corresponding to each of the interpretations. The methodology used to carry out the study is based on the theory of mental models. The results show that there can be L-true disjunctive sentences for every type of disjunction.

This paper presents a phylogenetic study of the concept of orb from its rise to its abandonment. While a heavy load of literature is dedicated to the introduction and abandonment of the concept, there are few systematic studies on the semantic components of this concept in the Islamic tradition of astronomy. We will investigate conceptual articulation among Arab astronomers by distinguishing the astronomical and philosophical understandings of the concept. While the former mainly focuses on the empirical evidence, the latter emphasizes causal and physical role of the concept’s referent. Such a distinction enables us to characterize some key conceptual components of the concept of orb. Among other components articulated by the Arab astronomers, the hardness of orbs, led Tycho Brahe and his fellow astronomers to abandon the concept.

Ordinary proper names can be taken to be referring expressions in non-fictional contexts. But what happens when such names occur in literary works? Within the realist stance, there are two approaches to the issue. Some say that ordinary proper names retain their real world referents in literary fiction. Others argue for the view that ordinary proper names are related there to surrogate referents. It can be pointed out, however, that both approaches create a conceptual tension within the realist doctrine. Fiction-internal contexts are incompatible with any reference-based interpretation of names. The proposal of this paper is, therefore, a shift in perspective: instead of sticking to the notion of reference, the behaviour of ordinary names should be described in terms of representation.

In this article, we will defend an epistemological claim: that observation is mathematically-laden. A well-known thesis in the philosophy of science is that observation is theory-laden. The claim that observation is mathematically laden can be partially seen as an analogous argument. The first part of the paper focuses on the definition of mathematically-ladeness and its relations to the best-known problem of theory-ladeness. The second part of the paper presents some explicit examples and outlines the consequences and the difficulties of this epistemological limit. Finally a specific context for this problem is discussed in details: we will analyze the question of deterministic chaos as a paradigmatic example of mathematically-ladeness and shows that the deterministic or indeterministic nature of chaos is strongly linked to the choice of a particular mathematical description.

The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct the history of sanitation in the city of Buenos Aires in the period between 1829 and 1905. Within this chronological milestone, the paper seeks to address political actions specifically directed towards the water supply and construction of a sewerage system in the city. The proposed approach involves the study of different forms of interation of government and of private capital in project implementation, construction and sanitation services to Buenos Aires. The content of the article is divided into two parts that represent important changes in the conduct of political reorganization of the city: the first part covers the period from 1829 to 1880, when projects arise catchment water produced by Carlos Enrique Pellegrini, having municipality and the provincial government as the main agents of sanitation of Buenos Aires, the second highlights the context of the federalization of the city, where the works are taken over by the federal government and the clash between private capital and government becomes more intense, it extends up from 1880 to 1905, the year of completion of project of sanitation of engineer John Fredrick La Trobe Bateman.

This paper reconstructs Venn’s algebraic logic and identifies some of the philosophical notions concerning the nature of symbolic knowledge underlying his work. We show that Venn, in facing philosophical problems associated with his algebraic logic, needs to articulate the symbolic knowledge notions of ecthetic function and of surrogative function. The paper explains those notions based on the systematization of the functions of symbolic knowledge that we find in the recent philosophical literature. This paper also situates Venn’s work within the 19th Century efforts towards a symbolization of logic, and, through an analysis of a historical case, clarifies the notions of ecthetic function and of surrogative function.

This paper reconstructs Venn’s algebraic logic and identifies some of the philosophical notions concerning the nature of symbolic knowledge underlying his work. We show that Venn, in facing philosophical problems associated with his algebraic logic, needs to articulate the symbolic knowledge notions of ecthetic function and of surrogative function. The paper explains those notions based on the systematization of the functions of symbolic knowledge that we find in the recent philosophical literature. This paper also situates Venn’s work within the 19th Century efforts towards a symbolization of logic, and, through an analysis of a historical case, clarifies the notions of ecthetic function and of surrogative function.

This paper presents Erwin Schrödinger’s Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, with the main goal of comparing it to the so called Many Worlds Interpretation, of which Bryce DeWitt is the most important figure. It is commonly said that DeWitt’s and Everett’s Interpretations are equivalent, and both would have been inspired by Schrödinger’s wave-like approach. This paper claims those stances to be superficial, requiring a more detailed exam of the philosophical grounds held by the authors, besides other distinguishing details. A connexion may be established concerning the rejection of the quantum collapse, although one should be careful about the meaning of the term in each standpoint. This article also shows the balance of Schrödinger’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in regard to his philosophy in a wider sense. Finally, it concludes that detaching Schrödinger’s interpretation from Many Worlds is more coherent with his philosophical assumptions; he conceives a single world containing infinite possibilities.

Informally speaking, the Principle of Identity, one of the so-called “Laws of Logic”, grants us in one of its most well-known formulations that every object is identical to itself. Non-reflexive logics, roughly speaking, are systems of logic in which this principle is not valid in general. One of the problems associated with non-reflexive logics concerns quantification: it has been argued that quantification only makes sense if we presuppose the identity concept, and consequently, non-reflexive logics employing quantifiers presuppose some form of the principle of identity we wanted to restrict in their formulation. In this paper we argue that it is possible to make sense of quantification in non-reflexive logics without presupposing identity. We argue both from a syntactical as well as from a semantical point of view. We close the paper with some reflections on natural language and its relation to non-reflexive logics.

Goodman’s paper “The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals” played a central role in the debate concerning the proper analysis of counterfactual conditionals. In what follows I examine Goodman’s paper in detail and discuss objections and suggestions by Parry in his “Reexamination of the Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals”. I restrict my discussion to what Goodman termed “the problem of relevant conditions”, which is the main subject of Parry’s criticism, and which I also consider to be the central issue for Goodman’s approach.

This paper sings a song — a song created by bringing together the work of four great names in the history of logic: Hans Reichenbach, Arthur Prior, Richard Montague, and Leon Henkin. Although the work of the first three of these authors have previously been combined, adding the ideas of Leon Henkin is the addition required to make the combination work at the logical level. But the present paper does not focus on the underlying technicalities (these can be found in Areces, Blackburn, Huertas, and Manzano [to appear]) rather it focusses on the underlying instruments, and the way they work together. We hope the reader will be tempted to sing a long.

The paper argues that the development of recording data over the last five thousand years can be regarded as chapters in a basically continuous narrative. This continuity explains why Plato's reflections on the oral and the written, and Aristotle's remarks on memory and reminiscence, are still relevant in our globalised world. In the conclusion, the paper comments on Paul Ricoeur's attempt to bridge the gap between memory, history and forgetting, as well as on its controversial political implications.

In this paper we discuss some questions proposed by Prof. Newton da Costa on the foundations of quasi-set theory. His main doubts concern the possibility of a reasonable semantical understanding of the theory, mainly due to the fact that identity and difference do not apply to some entities of the theory’s intended domain of discourse. According to him, the quantifiers employed in the theory, when understood in the usual way, rely on the assumption that identity applies to all entities in the domain of discourse. Inspired by his provocation, we suggest that, using some ideas presented by da Costa himself in his seminars at UFSC (the Federal University of Santa Catarina) and by one of us (DK) in some papers, these difficulties can be overcome both on a formal level and on an informal level, showing how quantification over items for which identity does not make sense can be understood without presupposing a semantics based on a ‘classical’ set theory.

One of Da Costa’s motives when he constructed the paraconsistent logic C! was to dualise the negation of intuitionistic logic. In this paper I explore a different way of going about this task. A logic is defined by taking the Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic, and dualising the truth conditions for negation. Various properties of the logic are established, including its relation to C!. Tableau and natural deduction systems for the logic are produced, as are appropriate algebraic structures. The paper then investigates dualising the intuitionistic conditional in the same way. This establishes various connections between the logic, and a logic called in the literature ‘Brouwerian logic’ or ‘closed-set logic’.

This paper intends to introduce the three issues of Principia which will appear in a sequel honoring Newton da Costa’s 80th birthday. Instead of presenting the papers one by one, as it is common in presentations such as this one, we have left the papers speak by themselves, and instead we have preferred to present to the Brazilian readers, specialty to our students, some aspects of Newton da Costa’s conception of science and of the scientific activity, grounded on the concept of quasi-truth, which he contributed to develop in a rigorous way. Da Costa is known as one of the founding fathers of paraconsistent logic, but his contributions go also to the foundations of physics, theoretical computation, model theory, algebraic logic, lattice theory, applications of non-classical logics to law and technology, etc. But perhaps his main contribution was to provide a basis for the birth of a school of logic in our country (Brazil), serving as teacher and inspiring new researchers for generations. It is a pleasure to have had so enthusiastic acceptation from the editors of Principia to organize these volumes. I would like to thank the contributors and the editors of Principia, specially Prof. Cezar Mortari for his help in organizing the issue.

One of Da Costa's motives when he constructed the paraconsistent logic Cw was to dualise the negation of intuitionistic logic. In this paper I explore a different way of going about this task. A logic is defined by taking the Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic, and dualising the truth conditions for negation. Various properties of the logic are established, including its relation to CWo Tableau and natural deduction systems for the logic are produced, as are appropriate algebraic structures. The paper then investigates dualising the intuitionistic conditional in the same way. This establishes various connections between the logic, and a logic called in the literature 'Brouwerian logic' or 'closed-set logic'.

The paper provides a reconstruction of Strawson’s argument in chapter 3 of Individuals, emphasizing an aspect of his analysis which has received relatively small attention in the literature: the role played by a “non-detached” or “involved” stance towards other subjects in the constitution of a non-solipsistic consciousness of the world. Additionally, the paper presents some of the main lines of development which are available to further clarify and articulate the underscored aspect of Strawson’s analysis, ending up with the suggestion that a main weakness of the argument as presented in Individuals may be fixed by bringing into play Strawson’s later examination (as presented, most notably, in the essay “Freedom and Resentment”) of the varieties of “reactive” attitudes and feelings towards other subjects.

According to the dominant view on causation, particular, spatial-temporally locatable events, which can be designated by singular terms and definite descriptions, are the only genuine relata of the causal relation. This supports and is supported by the accepted dicothomy between explanation, conceived of as an intensional relation between facts or truths, and the natural, extensional relation of causation. The paper takes issue with this view and makes a case for the legitimacy of the notion of fact-causation: the relata of many relations expressed by the sentential connector ‘(The fact) C causes (the fact) E’ can be genuine causes and effects (I). The extended view on causation is then applied to the problem of mental causation. Assuming the truth of physical realizationism, the paper explores the connection between causal efficacy and counterfactual relevance of properties. It is shown that, at least in many cases, the right counterfactual links required by causation can be found only at the level of the realized facts, not at the most basic level of realizing facts (II). Finally, given the similarities between the defense of nonreductive physicalism sketched here and the more immodest attempts to vindicate scientifically the claims of metaphysical materialism, justly criticized by Van Fraassen as manifestations of ‘false consciousness’, it is considered whether and how the paper’s main argument can avoid Van Fraassen’s charge (III).

This paper aims to offer an alternative view for understanding scientific models based on metaphors. To accomplish this, we employ a special case of Darwin’s use of metaphors, such as the notion of powerful Being, in order to represent natural selection. Our proposal contributes to issues in the literature of scientific model, such as imprecisions in the understanding of scientific models, especially in models based on metaphors. Thus, our alternative view of models based on metaphors, and inspired by Darwin’s use of metaphors, provides us with four features, a-simplification and selection; b-articulation of familiar-unfamiliar structures; c-accessibility and moderations of complexity, and finally d-local realism. We contrast these features with Darwin’s use of a metaphors. We conclude by saying that our proposal of metaphor’s approach of models does not only contribute to the clarification of how these types of scientific models can be understood but it shows that metaphors can also contain a realist element that explains why scientists often use it in their practices of modeling the world.

In this paper a proposal by Henkin of a nominalistic interpretation for second and higher-order logic is developed in detail and analysed. It was proposed as a response to Quine’s claim that second and higher-order logic not only are (α) committed to the existence of sets, but also are (β) committed to the existence of more sets than can ever be referred to in the language. Henkin’s interpretation is rarely cited in the debate on semantics and ontological commitments for these logics, though it has many interesting ideas that are worth exploring. The detailed development will show that it employs an early strategy of using substitutional quantification in order to reduce ontological commitments. It will be argued that the perspective adopted for the predicate variables renders it a natural extension of Quine’s nominalistic interpretation for first-order logic. However, we will argue that, with respect to Quine’s nominalistic program and his notion of ontological commitment, (α) still holds and thus Henkin’s interpretation is not nominalistic. Nevertheless, it will be seen that (β) is addressed successfully and this provides further insights on the so-called “Skolem Paradox”. Moreover, the interpretation is ontologically parsimonious and, in this respect, it arguably fares better than a recent proposal by Bob Hale.

A famous passage in Section 64 of Frege’s Grundlagen may be seen as a justification for the truth of abstraction principles. The justification is grounded in the procedure of content recarving which Frege describes in the passage. In this paper I argue that Frege’s procedure of content recarving while possibly correct in the case of first-order equivalence relations is insufficient to grant the truth of second-order abstractions. Moreover, I propose a possible way of justifying second-order abstractions by referring to the operation of content recarving and I show that the proposal relies to a certain extent on the Basic Law V. Therefore, if we are to justify the truth of second-order abstractions by invoking the content recarving procedure we are committed to a special status of some instances of the Basic Law V and thus to a special status of extensions of concepts as abstract objects.

John Turri has recently called for a major shift in how the vast majority of philosophers think of knowledge. Instead of maintaining that knowledge must proceed from reliable processes, he urges epistemologists to move toward an “abilist” view that allows knowledge to proceed from abilities that are not truth-conducive. More strongly, he claims to have provided conclusive reasons for abandoning the idea that knowledge requires reliability. In this paper I explain why Turri has failed to make the case for preferring abilism.

This Special Issue brings a selection of peer-reviewed papers that were presented at the 12th Principia International Symposium: Models and Modeling in the Sciences, Florianópolis, Brazil, online, August 2021. In this preface, the chair and the secretary of the organizing committee comment the symposium's context and briefly present the issue.

Carnap’s conception of linguistic frameworks is widespread; however, it is not entirely clear nor consensual to pinpoint what is the influence in his stance within the traditional realist/anti-realist debate. In this paper, we place Carnap as a proponent of a scientific realist stance, by presenting what he called “linguistic realism”. Some possible criticisms are considered, and a case study is offered with wave function realism, a popular position in the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

It is certainly well accepted that formal models play a key role in scientific job. Its use goes from natural sciences like physics and even to social sciences like economics and politics. Using mathematics allows the researcher to consider more complicated scenarios involving several variables. Some models are developed to make predictions, others to describe a phenomena, or just to improve the explanation of events in the world. But what has all this to do with philosophy? The aim of the present paper is to investigate debates on the role of formal models in a specific philosophical subject, precisely, the epistemology of rationality. Are we able to explain why models are needed in epistemological work? This answer will be addressed on the assumptions that epistemological theorizing is committed with normative statements. More specifically, epistemologists are concerned with normative questions about what rationality requires from epistemic agents. The first goal is to discuss some assumptions about the role of mathematical models in formal epistemology undertaking. And secondly, I will argue for the following two claims: (i) formal models are useful tools for predicting consequences of normative assumption about what is intuitively required by rationality; and (ii) insofar rationality theory is normative in virtue of being instrumentalist and aiming at truth, formal models are means-end tools, therefore, for rationality, mathematical models are devices for maximizing truth in doxastic states.

Quine has famously put forward the indispensability argument to force belief in the existence of mathematical objects (such as classes) due to their indispensability to our best theories of the world (Quine 1960). Quine has also advocated the indeterminacy of reference argument, according to which reference is dramatically indeterminate: given a language, there’s no unique reference relation for that language (see Quine 1969a). In this paper, I argue that these two arguments are in conflict with each other. Whereas the indispensability argument supports realism about mathematics, the indeterminacy of reference argument, when applied to mathematics, provides a powerful strategy in support of mathematical anti-realism. I conclude the paper by indicating why the indeterminacy of reference phenomenon should be preferred over the considerations regarding indispensability. In the end, even the Quinean shouldn’t be a realist (platonist) about mathematics.

The paper aims at recovering some epistemological issues in the debate between Putnam and Habermas about the objectivity of values. To begin with, I take up some discussions in philosophy of language and pragmatism in order to develop a framework according to which it is possible a less unilateral comprehension of the relation between naturalism and the normativity of ‘life forms’ (1). This account attempts to contextualize the Habermas /Putnam debate. Then I summarize Putnamt’s positions (2). Thirdly, after pointing out what appears to be the common argumentative position by delineating the boundaries of ethical pragmatism, the paper focuses on its meaning for contemporary issues in practical philosophy (3). Finally, I argue that Habermas is successful at responding to Putnam’s critics, although he thereby adheres in his account of deontological morality to an axiological orientation based on vulnerability (4).

This paper takes issue with a widely accepted view of mental causation. This is the view that mental causation is either reducible to physical causation or ultimately untenable, because incompatible with the causal completeness of physics The paper examines, first, why recent attempts to save the phenomena of mental causation by way of the notion of supervenient causation fail The result of t/us examination is the claim that any attempted specification of the most basic causal factors which supposedly underlie a causal transaction cannot account for the counterfactually necessary connections with the effect m question. By contrast, the specification of these factors at a higher-level would allow establishing such connections. The paper doses with a discussion of how the view of autonomous higher-level causation grounded on counterfactual relations can be made compatible with the physicalistic commitment to a complete specification of the particular causes of any physical effect exclusively in physical terms.