<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Episode 40: Johan van Benthem discusses logical dynamics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2012/10/03/episode-40-johan-van-benthem-discusses-logical-dynamics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2012/10/03/episode-40-johan-van-benthem-discusses-logical-dynamics/</link>
	<description>A University of Chicago Philosophy Podcast</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 10:17:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Teichman</title>
		<link>http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2012/10/03/episode-40-johan-van-benthem-discusses-logical-dynamics/#comment-2990</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Teichman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/?p=609#comment-2990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great points.  I think that a lot of these issues are still being worked out over in Amsterdam, NASSLLI, ESSLLI, Ludwig Maximilians Universitat, and a few other places as we speak.  There are people working out the consequences of small changes in classical logic, and there are people trying to overthrow the entire logical/truth-conditional paradigm--for example, by replacing it with more statistical/corpus-based stuff.  The ideal, it seems to me, is for all these approaches to be pursued by a wide variety of people a) in as much depth as possible and b) in such a way that everyone shares their results with one another.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great points.  I think that a lot of these issues are still being worked out over in Amsterdam, NASSLLI, ESSLLI, Ludwig Maximilians Universitat, and a few other places as we speak.  There are people working out the consequences of small changes in classical logic, and there are people trying to overthrow the entire logical/truth-conditional paradigm&#8211;for example, by replacing it with more statistical/corpus-based stuff.  The ideal, it seems to me, is for all these approaches to be pursued by a wide variety of people a) in as much depth as possible and b) in such a way that everyone shares their results with one another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Operator</title>
		<link>http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2012/10/03/episode-40-johan-van-benthem-discusses-logical-dynamics/#comment-2982</link>
		<dc:creator>Operator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2012 00:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/?p=609#comment-2982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I loved this and the last episode. They highlighted some areas of philosophy that are rapidly evolving and relevant. And showed how ideas developed originally in mathematical logic have turned out to be extremely fruitful, but also that new methods and theories are needed to tackle questions relating to computational semantics and &quot;information flow&quot;. 

How far can we go by discovering &quot;adjustments&quot; to the old logic (as was done with intensional logics and Montague semantics), and is more interaction between logic, statistical methods, game theory etc. needed?

Or maybe some genius somewhere, the new Frege, is already working on a completely novel, simple, but powerful approach that will make our present tools look ad hoc and clunky.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I loved this and the last episode. They highlighted some areas of philosophy that are rapidly evolving and relevant. And showed how ideas developed originally in mathematical logic have turned out to be extremely fruitful, but also that new methods and theories are needed to tackle questions relating to computational semantics and &#8220;information flow&#8221;. </p>
<p>How far can we go by discovering &#8220;adjustments&#8221; to the old logic (as was done with intensional logics and Montague semantics), and is more interaction between logic, statistical methods, game theory etc. needed?</p>
<p>Or maybe some genius somewhere, the new Frege, is already working on a completely novel, simple, but powerful approach that will make our present tools look ad hoc and clunky.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
