Research Projects

We use logic in all areas of our lives: to evaluate political arguments, construct mathematical proofs, and test scientific theories. In doing so, we assume that we possess the logical knowledge required to reliably make these inferences.

Further, we make regular use of logical systems to solve technological problems, whether this be model multi-agent systems in AI or to extract information from a database.

Yet, despite the prominent and important role that both logical inferences and systems play within our public, scientific and technological lives, we have a poor understanding of the epistemology of logic. What justifies our view that a certain inference is logically valid, or that a certain logical system is better (for a given purpose) than others? At present, we have no detailed answer.

Both of my research projects, EpiLog (2018-21) and PreLog (2022-25), have attempted to address this failing by arguing that we need to pay closer attention to actual practices of logicians if we wish to understand the epistemology of logic. Whereas the philosophy of science and mathematics have both benefited significantly from detailed case studies of scientific and mathematical practice, philosophers of logic have been hesitant to do to the same with logic.

Both EpiLog and PreLog aim to use various case studies from logic to draw important lessons the field’s methodology , and subsequently improve our understanding of logic’s epistemology.

Details about each of the projects are given below.

The Logical Science: How logics prove their worth through successful predictions (PreLog, 2022-25)

PreLog expands upon the research in my first project, EpiLog, in several regards. Firstly, it expands upon the range of case studies considered, including not only debates within alethic logic over the correct logic of validity, but also epistemic logic and logics of belief revision.

Secondly, it aims to use these case studies to provide a more detailed account of the mechanisms of theory-choice in logic, called logical predictivism, which shows that logical theories are chosen by similar means to scientific theories, through theories being both predictively successful and having explanatory power.

Lastly, it aims to show that logics go about explaining their target phenomena in a similar way to models within the sciences explain their target systems.

Other project members: Franci Mangraviti, Andreas Fjellstad.

PreLog is financed by the European Union’s NextGenerationEU programme, under the Recovery and Resilience Plan: Next Generation Italia framework, and hosted at the University of Padova.

The Unknown Science: Understanding the Epistemology of Logic through Practice (EpiLog, 2018-21)

EpiLog was my first project advocating the use of the activities of logicians as a reliable guide to understanding the epistemology of logic. It attempted to both develop a new practice-based approach for the epistemology of logic, and show the fruitfulness of such an approach in helping us better understand logic’s epistemology.

It did the latter by focusing upon the case study of the debate between dialetheism and classical logic over whether some inconsistent theories are true or not, and considering the types of evidence both sides of debate appealed to when justifying their respective theories.

Ultimately, the findings from the project were used to draw interesting conclusions not only about the utility of the practice-based approach itself, but how disagreements within logic function, the famous forms of evidence pertinent to logical debates, and potential similarities between theory-choice in logic and the sciences.

EpiLog was funded by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship grant (no: 797507), under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, at the University of Bergen.