There was a quite stunning performance of a non-philosophical sort here this week -- Cheek by Jowl’s Russian-language (surtitled) production of Three Sisters which was simply out of this world. I won't make a fool of myself trying to put in to words why it was so stunning but the impact was intense and the audience obviously very moved. The Russian actors made more emotional sense of the sisters' predicaments than I've ever seen before. Wonderful. (There are a couple of reviews here and here which agree!)
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
For a few months -- as displacement behaviour while I was supposed to be finishing my book -- I got in the habit of visiting the newsgroup sci.logic quite often and trying to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. But there is a huge proportion of sheer garbage (is it getting worse?), and too many idiots apparently incapable of learning from the small number of posters who patiently try to clear up confusions. I despair, for logic matters ...
I mentioned this in an email to Jeff Ketland, another one-time frequent poster, and bemoaned the fact that there wasn't anything between the hopeless sci.logic and the high-end but relatively narrow-focus FOM list. And he had an interesting response: he suggested that in fact the new thing -- the medium de nos jours -- is not the free-for-all usenet group populated with aggressive know-nothings but the group blog. And maybe he's right. For example, I've just belatedly stumbled on The n-Category Café which is indeed fun and illuminating.
But the trouble is that, if discussions distribute themselves around a bunch of different blogs, how do we find what's available? I wonder how we might put together a logic meta-blog to keep track of the good stuff?
Posted by Peter Smith at 6:20 AM
Saturday, April 21, 2007
My colleague Michael Potter organized a one-day workshop today focusing on issues arising out of Dan Isaacson's paper, "Arithmetical truth and hidden higher-order concepts", which appeared 20 years ago.
It's quite difficult to tease out the full content of Dan's claims about the status of first-order PA in his paper, but a core claim -- I call it Isaacson's Thesis -- is surely this:
If we are to give a proof for any true sentence of the language of first-order PA which is independent of PA, then we will need to appeal to ideas that go beyond those that are required in understanding PA (and more generally, but more vaguely, beyond those that are required to understand the structure of the natural numbers and thus elementary pure arithmetic).
Dan wants to say more (though that's where things get a bit murkier), but the core Thesis is reasonably clear and interesting in itself -- and if not even that is true, then Dan's stronger claims won't be true. In my talk "Ancestral Arithmetic and Isaacson’s Thesis" (NB the link is to an unrevised version!), I suggested that we can construct a formalized arithmetic PA* with a primitive ancestral operator which in fact is within the conceptual grasp of someone who understands PA. If PA* enabled us to prove new theorems in the language of PA that would be a strike against the Thesis. But I outlined a proof that PA* is in fact conservative over PA, a result not just in harmony with the Thesis but giving it positive support. (The talk went pretty well, but I made a bit of a hash of the questions, but what's new?)
The other talks were by Ben Colburn (on of our PhD students) and Hannes Leitgeb, who talked more about what we might reasonably mean by saying with Dan that PA is sound and complete for "arithmetical truth". And Luca Incurvati (another of our students) and Dan Isaacson himself talked about analogues for set theory of Dan's thesis for arithmetic. In a way, the day ended too soon, as the discussions after the final paper by Hannes were just seeming to get to the heart of issues about arithmetic when we broke up. But a very productive and enjoyable day all the same.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Paul Teller is in Cambridge, and it is very good to see him. He gave a talk in HPS on "Provisional knowledge". Here's his abstract (there's more on his website).
Physics, and science generally, rarely function according to the mechanist tradition of founding all scientific knowledge on 'shaped matter in motion' of the parts of a system. Rather we employ a vast range of explanatory strategies a great many of which work in terms of 'stripping detail' when detail is not relevant to the problem at hand. Most of these strategies involve some level of idealisation, inaccuracy, or distortion, which raises the worry: When accounts in science involve distortion, how can they count as knowledge? This problem motivates reconstruing knowledge, and in particular its requirement of (exact) truth in its content component, in terms of the kinds of standards that require something less than perfect precision and accuracy, much as the context and interest dependent standards that we apply for representational accuracy of things such as maps and pictures. Since, logically, no evaluation by comparison with an unrepresented reality is possible, evaluation of any representational scheme can take place only on the basis of some other (in general) relatively precise and accurate scheme; and the scheme that functions as our platform for the moment can only be evaluated pragmatically.
I think, though, that I've really lost my taste for philosophy done at this level of stratospheric abstraction, jetting over the terrain at great speed. All those years editing Analysis evidently have taken their toll. We had a fun evening arguing over dinner, but I'm not sure that my exhortations to take things slowly got us very far!
Posted by Peter Smith at 10:30 AM
Thursday, April 19, 2007
abebooks.com is a wonderful thing -- you can so often find cheap copies of in-print books that you want, and (often not-so-cheap) copies of out-of-print books as well. The trouble is that booksellers can of course use the site too to find out what particular books in their stock are worth, and these days you rarely pick up real philosophical or logical bargains sold at silly prices because the seller has little clue of their value (I not so very long ago picked up a complete Principia in excellent condition for £30 -- that sort of thing wouldn't happen now).
But you still make serendipitous little finds. In the "all hardbacks 50p" bargain tray outside a little bookshop at a National Trust house, a copy of Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the Century. Which is very much a period piece, reminding us how the reputations of philosophers can change so markedly. But there is an intriguing 72 page essay by Kreisel, 'Mathematical logic: what has it done for the philosophy of mathematics', which I confess I can't recall reading more than a few pages of before. Like other Kreisel papers, you just wish it were written in a more conventional, less allusive (ok, more flat-footed) style. Just imagine what Kreisel's reputation would be if he had been able to write with e.g. Putnam's directness and lucidity (Putnam has a piece in the collection too). So often, he seems to have got there first, but we -- well, most of us -- can only really see it with hindsight.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
There's an afternoon planned soon to review the Faculty's teaching, so it will be a good occasion to rethink some of our current arrangements for logic teaching. At the moment this looks to me to be about the right pattern, given the calibre of our students (good) and our resources (limited).
- First year, propositional and predicate logic by trees (up to and including completeness for propositional trees: this is in fact what we do at the moment, using my Introduction to Formal Logic). We should also perhaps have a few lectures on set notation etc. (again, something we do at the moment). That's compulsory for all students.
- Second year, we could have five units corresponding roughly to the five main chapters of Logical Options by Bell, DeVidi and Solomon. So that's a unit on other ways of doing logic, using propositional logic as the illustration -- in particular, natural deduction. A unit treating the semantics for predicate logic more carefully, and an explanation of the completeness proof. Something on axiomatic systems built using a first-order logic. A unit introducing modal logic. And a unit on non-classical logics, in particular intuitionistic logic. (Again nearly all those are already on the syllabus, but we don't teach them in a methodogical and integrated way. Using Logical Options as a course text could be a way of imposing order on the current slight mess. The book strikes me, having just got a copy for the first time, to be very good: it goes quite snappily and needs support from lectures, but it is the right kind of coverage and the right kind of level. This too is for a compulsory paper, though students can avoid answering too-technical questions by concentrating on some associated philosophical logic.)
- Third year, mathematical logic. This could remain pretty much as we do it at the moment. Some basic model theory, comparisons of first and second order logic, etc. Then Michael Potter's course using his Set Theory and its Philosophy, and my course using An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems. We could also make the technical parts of the current paper available as a graduate course for those who haven't done enough logic when they come to us from elsewhere.
It is my impression is that even good and large departments elsewhere in the UK are dropping serious logic teaching (so that e.g. a Single Honours student may have access only to one optional honours module using Tomassi's very, very elementary book). But before getting too upset about this and bemoaning the Dumbing Down of Courses and the general Decline of the West, I am minded to try to organize some kind of survey to find out the state of logic teaching in UK philosophy departments. I've put a message out on Philos-L to check that no-one else is in the middle of doing this (and check too that a survey hasn't been done recently and I've just failed to notice!). Watch this space.
Posted by Peter Smith at 2:08 PM
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I've just delivered the final version of my Gödel book to CUP (sent the PDF, taken round a print out). So that's that, delayed a couple of months by family matters, though I hope the publication date won't be much changed. I'll have to restrain myself now from looking at it again before it appears.
At the moment I'm tolerably happy with the result. That has a great deal to do with Richard Zach who sent me some quite extraordinarily helpful late comments, including a handful that saved me from embarrassing errors. I am enormously grateful to him.
Of course, as is always the way, once you've finished a book you can see an alternative way of organizing it overall, patches that should have been done differently, things you could have included and other bits you could have dropped. Somewhere in Popper's third world there is the better book I could have written. But the sublunary version will have to do.
While writing it, I've acquired a great stack of things I want to, need to, read, and ideas for a couple of follow-up books. But first, I've immediately got to dive in and write a talk for a workshop in ten days time on themes from Dan Isaacson's paper, "Arithmetical truth and hidden higher-order concepts". Should be fun.
Posted by Peter Smith at 11:10 AM