CfP: Workshop on Logical Constants
Idea and Motivation
Contemporary accounts of logical consequence make crucial reference to a distinction between the logical and the nonlogical vocabulary in a language. Recent decades have seen a variety of proposals for defining logicality: either by setting a strict criterion or by relativistic or pragmatic approaches.
The two traditions defining contemporary thought on the topic are the proof theoretic and the semantic traditions. What distinguishes these traditions is first and foremost the mathematical tools they employ in studying logical consequence. However, the difference is not merely methodological: there are deep philosophical questions involved, having to do with the relation between language, meaning and truth.
The discussion on logicality is thus bifurcated, each tradition employing its own considerations and technical machinery. While the investigation of the connections between proof theory and semantics is one of the greatest successes of modern logic, the particular topic of criteria for logicality has remained, on the most part, divided.
The aim of this workshop is to promote a dialogue between people working in these two traditions, for the benefit of both, and with the hope of gaining a wide perspective on the issues concerned with logicality.
Relevant questions and topics include, but are not restricted to, the following:
- What is the relation between model-theoretic and proof-theoretic criteria for logicality - both mathematically and philosophically?
- What are the separate benefits of the two traditional approaches?
- Should there be one strict criterion for logicality?