Shawn Standefer

It works pretty well, I think. The symbols available can be limiting, but usually it's not too big a deal.

Teaching logic over Teams -- new nightmare unlocked

This seems like it might work for a small working group on a topic. I’m in a couple of logic group chats that have been helpful for discussing things and finding references

So, umm, any others who teach history of philosophy and who do in-class exams have ideas on how to do that?

I mean, I know I can test for received interpretations from the textbook, which they should have some awareness of. But to me, that's not quite the real interest of the class.

Advice welcome

At least in my broad field, a 12k word paper is going to look very different from a 6k one and fairly different from a 10k one. There doesn't seem to be any issue with having journals that are both top notch and opt for different article models.

If you submit a 12k word paper at a journal that publishes 6k word articles, any way of cutting 50% of the length is going to be a substantially different paper from the one that was refereed. Even dropping to 10k may require changes that substantially change it from what was refereed.

Yep, came here to say this. Zero marginal cost of distribution isn't zero marginal cost of production. And ESPECIALLY not zero marginal cost of consumption: many academics NEED word limits (even though they won't admit it).

All the more reason to get the morality into ChatGPT. That way it can give morally good responses when prompted!

It’s not the physical journal that is usually the limiting factor. Costs for copyediting and typesetting are generally the major ones. Those don’t go away with online journals except under special circumstances.

NTU philosophy provided lunch for almost all events that happened at lunchtime. Usually it was bento boxes. Talks generally happened post-lunch so food wasn’t provided.

I had a similar experience with Springer recently

The cookbook The Vegan Chinese Kitchen is very good. Clarissa Wei's Made In Taiwan has a lot of recipes that are easy to make vegan. The vegan food in Taiwan is really amazing.

From the quoted passage, it looks like “weaker” is the gloss on “less specific”.

On the view that you have some basic axioms and close those under the rules etc of logic, it’s plausible to say non-classical logics (usually) give you fewer consequences. I still don’t see how that’s less specific

I don’t think you can go from “ternary relational models for R are messy” to “all semantics for non-classical logics are messy”. It depends a lot on what messy means in any case.

1. Introduction to Syntactic Theory (HPSG)
2. Sociolinguistics
3. Computability Theory
4. Japanese history
5. Linguistic Semantics

It seems to me a little odd to gloss “less specific” as “weaker” in this context. Non-classical logics are typically weaker than classical logic, but it seems odd to say they’re less specific than classical logic.

Is there an easy way to say why idealism hinges on an account of quantification?

This is the main situation where I've requested additional referees. If the first two reports were very mixed, maybe a third would be brought in. Seven is a lot, even under weird circumstances.

Thanks! I’m very pleased with the book and the cover.

Cover image for Relevant Logics: Implication, Modality Quantification. The author's name is at the top, the title in the middle, and the subtitle towards the bottom. The cover is dark with a geometric pattern.

My book on relevant logics will be available mid-2026

My book’s page now has the cover image

Gödel, Escher, Bachelorette

Thanks for the helpful auto-complete, Gmail.

I often hear, in my line of work, that large language models have surpassed the capabilities of “mere stochastic parrots.” Yet few are willing to attribute to them anything like “understanding.” What, in your view, is the best recent appraisal of the limitations of LLMs?

Every working philosophical logician is aware of tex templates. Those templates often have lots of problems.

Is this shuttle service primarily for residents or tourists?

Epistemicism vindicated, apparently

#PhilSky: Looking for recs of good recent work on epistemology and technology: the risks of AI, deepfakes, epistemic problems with recommender algorithms, etc.

This is for an upper division course, so ideally stuff that is big picture and teachable. Self-recommendations welcome :)

philosopher of language going down an undetached rabbit parts hole

Relevant Logics | Cambridge University Press & Assessment

My forthcoming book now has a webpage at the publisher

www.cambridge.org/universitypr...

I don't think this quite clarifies your initial question about Lob's theorem. Boolos, in Logic of Provability, says that Q is sufficient to prove the diagonal lemma. It's not clear how you get from that to Lob's theorem without the HBL conditions though.