Prover-Skeptic Games and Logical Pluralism

29 September 2015

Workshop of Logical Dialogue Games, TU Vienna

According to the logical pluralist, there may be more than one legitimate answer to the question of whether a given deductive argument is valid. The pluralist faces a challenge, though, to explain how this could be so. In this paper I show that by adopting the ‘built-in opponent’ conception of deduction, a specific multi-agent dialogical account of our deductive practices, we can address the explanatory challenge: the different logics arise out of different norms effecting our argumentative and explanatory practices. In order to clarify our position we introduce Prover-Skeptic games, a novel kind of dialogue game introduced by Sørensen & Urzyczyn. Unlike traditional Lorenzen and Hintikka style dialogue games, theses are games of ‘proof-construction’ as opposed to ‘formula-evaluation’, and thus they connect up better with the built-in opponent view of our deductive practices. We give a uniform adequacy result for a class of substructural implicational logics relative to Prover-Skeptic games, with the changes in the structural rules in play being reflected in a uniform manner in the dialogue game.

  • More details are available on the Workshop Website here
  • Here is the Handout
  • Here are the Slides