Feb. 19th (Wed.) 9:30〜18:30 (JST) / 2月19日（水）9:30〜18:30

Light meal/dining and free discussion up to 19:30 / 会場での立食形式懇親・交流会19:30まで（予定）

(Sumitomo Real Estate Company’s) Building “Bellesalle Mita Garden” ROOM B　(2nd Floor).

• 5 minutes walk from JR-Tamachi Station or from Subway Mita Station (Exit #A 3), or 10 minutes walk from the Mita Campus of Keio University.
  
• The map from JR-Tamachi/Subway Mita (JPG file) is here.
  
• Web Page of “Bellesalle Mita Garden” in Japanese with map and Google map: https://www.bellesalle.co.jp/shisetsu/shinagawa/bs_mitagarden/
  
• Please enter through the sub-entrance located at the back left side of the building, rather than the main entrance.
  https://abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp/assets/gakkaimap.pdf
  
• Addres: 3-5-19 Mita, Minatoku, Tokyo

住友不動産ベルサール三田ガーデンB会議室（2階）

• JR田町駅または地下鉄三田駅A3出口から徒歩5分、慶應義塾大学三田キャンパスより徒歩10分
  
• JR田町駅/地下鉄三田駅（３番出口）から会場への地図です。(上記ベルサール三田ガーデンURLにも地図とGooglemap有り）https://www.bellesalle.co.jp/assets_c/2023/08/b25d49623ae24b75b900f0b66696cacb3d65976f-thumb-800x626-8646.jpg
  
• 正面エントランスではなく、ビル正面に向かって左奥のサブエントランスよりお入りください。
  https://abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp/assets/gakkaimap.pdf
  
• 住所：東京都港区三田3-5-19

(An entrance examination is scheduled on the Mita Campus of Keio University on the 19th Feb. Since no conference rooms are available, the meeting will take place at this conference room nearby.)

Pre-registration required, free of charge / すべて無料、要事前登録
https://forms.gle/t7Sxv1vzNy51kxwt7

There will be another meeting (The 4th France-Japan Colloquium “Disagreement in Logic and Reasoning” with a special Panel Session on Normativity and divergences of forms of life (On-site and Online, Language: English), on the 21st and 22nd at the Mita Campus of Keio University, on the 21st and the 22nd Feb. We will announce the details formally later: One could preview the tentative schedule in the following
website: https://abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp/2025/02_Logic_and_Reasoning

この日の哲学会合とは別に、2月21日、22日に第４回日仏コロキアム「論理とリーズニングにおける不一致」（「生活形式の規範性と乖離」に関する特別パネルを含む）（ハイブリッド形式、使用言語：英語）が慶應義塾大学三田キャンパスで開催されます。詳細は近日中に告知させていただきます。暫定スケジュール及び事前登録FORMは下記websiteをご覧ください。
Website: https://abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp/2025/02_Logic_and_Reasoning

Pierre Wagner (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Institute of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology)

Mitsuhiro Okada(Keio University)

Koji Mineshima (Keio University)

Hirohiko Abe (Independent Researcher)

Mitsuhiro Okada (Keio University)

Kentaro Ozeki (University of Tokyo / Keio University)

Koji Mineshima (Keio University)

Hirohiko Abe (Independent Researcher)

Yuichiro Hosokawa (Gunma Prefectural Women's University)

Ryo Ito (Waseda Unversity)

Ryosuke Igarashi (Kyoto University)

Onyu Mikami (Tokyo Metropolitan University)

Koji Mineshima (Keio University)

Mitsuhiro Okada (Keio University)

Kengo Okamoto (Tokyo Metropolitan University)

Kentaro Ozeki (University of Tokyo / Keio University)

Center for Design of Future Symbiosis of Keio University

logic@abelatd.flet.keio.ac.jp

Title: Opening remark: An overview of the France-Japan collaborative meeting series on philosophy of logic and reasoning

Abstract:
The work I will present is part of a joint research project (Axdef research project, supported by the National agency for research, with three groups in France) on the relationships between axioms and definitions. These relationships have been a key in the contemporary transformation of logic, mathematics and science, following the birth and development of modern axiomatics. The project approaches the study of axiomatic definitions from two complementary perspectives: historical and theoretical. The two main objectives are 1) to investigate the origin of the notion of axiomatic definitions, and 2) to classify axiomatic definitions and study the kind of problems they are applied to in logic and philosophy of mathematics. Along with this joint project, I will present a personal research on definitions which concern 1) the distinction between lexical, stipulative and axiomatic definitions, and the respective issues they raise ; 2) the fruitfulness of definitions (in view of the usual eliminability and non creativity requirements) especially in the case of mathematical definitions.

Title: Contemporary issues concerning axioms and definitions

Abstract:
The work I will present is part of a joint research project (Axdef research project, supported by the National agency for research, with three groups in France) on the relationships between axioms and definitions. These relationships have been a key in the contemporary transformation of logic, mathematics and science, following the birth and development of modern axiomatics. The project approaches the study of axiomatic definitions from two complementary perspectives: historical and theoretical. The two main objectives are 1) to investigate the origin of the notion of axiomatic definitions, and 2) to classify axiomatic definitions and study the kind of problems they are applied to in logic and philosophy of mathematics. Along with this joint project, I will present a personal research on definitions which concern 1) the distinction between lexical, stipulative and axiomatic definitions, and the respective issues they raise ; 2) the fruitfulness of definitions (in view of the usual eliminability and non creativity requirements) especially in the case of mathematical definitions.

Title: Temporal Turn of Counterfactual Logic

Abstract:
In this talk, I briefly introduce my research and development of counterfactual logic. From the point of view, I shall then propose a future direction of counterfactual logic, which I refer to as temporal turn of counterfactual logic, and its philosophical and practical significance.

Title: Introducing my research projects (tentative title)

Abstract:
I conduct my doctoral research in the fields of the philosophy of logic and generative linguistics. The subject of my PhD dissertation focuses particularly on the question of logical pluralism and the relationship between natural languages and formal languages. More specifically, I investigate the possibility of applying the Principles and Parameters model used in Chomskyan generative linguistics to better understand the diversity and the connection of different logical systems.

My research interests also include the philosophical, epistemic, and pedagogical implications of technologies designed for automated text analysis and language processing, as well as conversational agents that employ generative AI.

Title: Material Inferences in Mathematics

Abstract:
In this paper, I sketch how the notion of a variable can be used to develop Robert Brandom's inferentialism and thereby obtain an account of certain inferences mathematicians have made in practice. The idea is that we can employ Brandom's notion of material inferences to capture the intuitive content or intension of a mathematical concept while we also need to acknowledge, contra Brandom, the justificatory role of formal inferences (in a broad sense) in order to see how mathematicians make "new" inferences.

Title: Some advances in syntactic purity of equational proofs

Abstract:
Abstract (tentative) Gerhard Gentzen showed that the subformula property holds in first-order predicate calculus: every theorem has a proof all of whose formulas are subformulas of the theorem. This is a kind of syntactic purity: since the only formulas in these proofs are occurring in the theorem, they are intrinsic to the theorem in a precise way. However, poofs with mathematical axioms and algebraic axioms, as opposed to purely logical axioms, do not in general have the subformula property, and so this syntactic purity cannot be guaranteed in those systems. In joint work with Mitsu Okada, we will discuss how we can obtain a form of syntactic purity in mathematical and algebraic settings, by adding some axioms in the setting of equational term-rewriting and by applying the Knuth-Bendix completion to obtain normalization.

Title: Toward Reasoning-first Infinitism

Abstract:
Infinitism is one of the responses to the epistemic regress problem, or Agrippa’s Trilemma, along with foundationalism and coherentism. Infinitists think that reason-giving activities end when contextually determined standards are met while infinite chains of reasons guarantee epistemic justification. They regard reasoning as a process of following a chain of propositions, where each proposition serves as a reason for the one that follows. However, instead of grounding reasoning on reasons, I propose that the act of reasoning plays a fundamental role. What motivates this reversal lies in the observation that a proposition can be a reason for another only when it is accepted as such in practice of knowledge attribution. The relationship of reasons between propositions, therefore, is not fixed. I further explore the implications of this reversed perspective on the nature of epistemic reasons and reasonings. By shifting the focus from a chain of propositions to the practice of reasoning, I develop a reasoning-first variant of infinitism, presenting a dynamic and interactive view of epistemic justification.

Title: Reconstruction of Meaning-Theoretic Concepts from Reasoning

Abstract:
In this talk, I will introduce the motivation and overview of my research project. The question of how to explain the meaning of linguistic expressions remains one of the central issues in philosophy today. The conventional typical approach to this challenge has been to first establish a logical language for analyzing the linguistic expressions in question, determine how these expressions are syntactically constructed within that language, establish corresponding semantic theories, and provide interpretations.

However, in recent years, it has become apparent that there are often issues where it is unclear or inherently indeterminate what language a linguistic expression belongs to, what phenomena it expresses, or what kind of speech act the utterance of that expression constitutes. In this context, our argumentative activities themselves, so-called "reasoning," have gained attention, and it has become clear that this can potentially bring new insights to cutting-edge logic and semantics.

This research project aims to identify the seeds of these problems in the construction of modern logic since Frege and its inheritance by Wittgenstein, and to demonstrate that there is a consistent development of these issues in contemporary logic and its philosophy.

Title: Make Verificationism Great Again: (Logical) Empiricism and Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Remarks”

Abstract:
I begin with Carnap’s allegation that Wittgenstein invented a “principle of verification” at the time that he was writing “Philosophical Remarks” (1930). After showing that logical empiricists and Wittgenstein did not mean the same by ‘verification’, I argue that Wittgenstein’s variety (laying-bare-verificationism) might be seen as a resourceful application of Einstein’s verificationism, and that it is a powerful tool to elucidate what one really means with what one says. One interesting consequence of Wittgenstein’s laying-bare-verificationism is that the sense of sentences presupposes the existence of physical objects (ruler, color sample and watch, for instance) and the ways in which they are manipulated. It implies, then, among other things, a broader ‘context principle’.

Title: Back to Reality! (Epistemology)

Abstract:
Certain brands of New realism proclaim ‘the return of reality’. This is strange: how could we have ever left it? Our actions occur within reality and our thoughts make sense only in relation to it. However, postmodern relativism and constructivism may have resulted in a "loss of the sense for reality", if they should not themselves be held for consequences of real conditions that have weakened such sense. Against this view that makes the norms a veil between ourselves and reality, I will emphasize the inherent connection between norms and reality. Norms, when properly applied, enable us to grasp reality itself or are at least ways to get our bearings within reality. By clarifying this connection, we can move beyond the limitations of modern and postmodern thought and cultivate a more robust understanding of our place within reality.

Title: How to connect Calculation (Computation) with Reasoning (Proof)? － Frege vs. Hilbert vs. Wittgenstein

Abstract:
From Leibniz on, various philosophers anticipated that there should exist some close connection between calculation (e.g. practices of elementary arithmetic, together with more advanced applications of the algebraic equations, etc.) and reasoning (i.e. everyday inferences including quasi formal mathematical proofs) although its substance remained far from clear. Then, at the Turn from the 19th to the 20th century, came a vast wave of innovative endeavors, notably by Frege, Russell, Hilbert, etc. to reconstruct mathematics in terms of axiomatization and formalization. Now what kind of answers did they give to the question above? One could find various invaluable insights and attractive suggestions concerning the question all through their writings and talks, still we have not reached a position fortunate enough to yield a nice definite answer.

In the presentation, I would like to (1) first, take up Frege and Hilbert and reexamine their characteristic views on the connection of logical inferences and arithmetical calculations, and then (2) turn to Wittgenstein and analyze his diagnoses on their views and his own alternative views concerning the matter. So far as I expect, we would find how those investigations of Wittgenstein‘s were vehement, scrupulous and, in particular, have foresight.

Title: The ordinary and the everyday.

Abstract:
The everyday use to which Wittgenstein crefers is far from self-evident: it is just as elusive and indeterminate as our forms of life. The project of Philosophical Investigations is not to replace disqualified logic with the study of use, finding therein a new foundation or new convictions, even purely practical ones. I shall considers several reasons for returning to the concept of the Everyday, Wittgenstein’s point of departure, in ordinary language philosophy.

Title: Developing a logic of emotion

Abstract:
In this talk, I will present part of my research on logic of emotion based on the theory of intentionality. The modern development of modal logic and Meinongian semantics has led to a logic of intentionality. At the same time, in the tradition of Austrian philosophy and phenomenology, emotional experience has been seen as intentional. Combining these perspectives opens up the possibility of developing a logic of emotion. I will sketch ideas for incorporating emotional intentionality into the logic of intentionality.

Title: Scientific naturalism and finitary theories

Abstract:
In this talk, I will present a current project on how scientific realists can view mathematics in a naturalistic context. Since mathematics is central to science, naturalism wants to avoid a revisionary stance on mathematical practice, namely, reject theorems that are accepted by the mathematical community. However, only certain finitary parts of mathematical theories are applied in science: it seems to follow that those parts of mathematics which are not applied should not be considered legitimate parts of science. In this talk, I will outline a framework that avoids this tension by using the arithmetised completeness theorem. Assuming that a scientific realist is committed to accepting arithmetic, by interpreting stronger infinitary theories studied in mathematical practice into a formal theory of arithmetic, the scientific realist can recognise the reasoning in those theories as "legitimate" part of science, while suspending ontological and epistemological commitment about strong infinitary theories.

Title: TBA

Abstract: TBA

Title: From Biological to Social Norms of Life: The Perspective of the Anthropology of Life

Abstract:
This presentation draws on the field of the anthropology of life to address the issue of norms. From a comparative perspective, the anthropology of life examines the plurality of conceptions of life across human societies, conducting ethnographic studies on techniques of intervention on living organisms and social organizations. One of the key challenges is understanding how human societies develop norms (forms of life) to organize their interactions with organisms (life forms).

This presentation will explore how Science and Technology Studies approach the relationship between life forms and forms of life. In biology and biomedical research, anthropologists such as Stefan Helmreich, Margaret Lock, and Paul Rabinow investigate the impact of cultural contexts on the practice of science and the understanding of life. The same is true for bioethical considerations, as demonstrated by Gísli Pálsson, which are deeply shaped by cultural frameworks and even geopolitical relations. Using examples from scientific research in the fields of biomedicine, genomics, and microbiology, we aim to better understand the diversity of norms and standards within the field of bioethics.