Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Entia et Nomina 2016 CFP

The “Entia et Nomina” series features English language workshops for young researchers in formally oriented philosophy, in particular in logic, philosophy of science, formal epistemology and philosophy of language. The aim of the workshop is to foster cooperation among young philosophers with a formal bent from various research groups. The fifth workshop in the series will take place from 5 to 9 September in Warsaw, Poland.
Invited speakers:
Authors of contributed papers are requested to submit extended abstracts of about 1000 words, prepared for blind-review (in pdf format), by July, the 30th, 2016, to Authors of accepted papers will have 40 minutes to present their work. Each paper will be followed by a 10 minute commentary prepared beforehand by another participant. Accepted participants might also be asked to comment on at least one talk. Commentaries will be followed by 10-15 minutes of discussion. Applications can be made also for the role of commentator only. We aim to make the short versions of the accepted papers available to the participants ahead of the conference.
For more information, see the website:

Local Organising Committee: Michał Tomasz Godziszewski (, Mateusz Łełyk, Tomasz Steifer, Antonio Matamoros Ochman

Sunday, April 24, 2016


When: December 1-2, 2016
Where: Institute of Philosophy II, Ruhr-University Bochum

Arguments vary in strength. The strength of an argument is affected by e.g. the plausibility of its premises, the nature of the link between its premises and conclusion, and the prior acceptability of the conclusion.

The aim of this workshop is to bring together experts from the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy, logic, and argumentation theory to discuss questions related to the strength of arguments. Such questions include:

-Which factors influence the strength of an argument?
-What are the pros and cons of different formal representations of argument strength?
-How to formally model qualifiers on the conclusions of arguments?
-How does argument strength propagate when inferences are chained?
-How do arguments accrue?
-Can weaker arguments defeat and/or defend stronger arguments?
-When do more specific arguments defeat more general arguments and vice versa?
-How do formal and informal approaches to argument strength relate?
-How do preferences assigned to premises influence the evaluation of arguments?

Keynote speakers:
Gerhard Brewka (University of Leipzig)
Gabriele Kern-Isberner (TU Dortmund)
Beishui Liao (Zhejiang University)
Henry Prakken (Utrecht University)

Leon Van Der Torre (University of Luxembourg)

Abstract submission:
Authors are invited to submit an abstract (500-1000 words) related to the above or any other questions on the topic of argument strength to by August 1, 2016.

Important dates:
submission deadline: August 1, 2016
notifications: September 1, 2016
workshop: December 1-2, 2016

Organizing committee:
Mathieu Beirlaen
AnneMarie Borg
Jesse Heyninck
Dunja Šešelja
Christian Straßer

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Emergence of Structuralism and Formalism (Conference)

There'll be an interesting conference on the emergence of structuralism and formalism in Prague (June 24-26). Submission deadline: April 30. Details here. Pity I can't make it.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Swamplandia 2016

Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science in Ghent organizes a workshop on the philosophical aspects of meta-arithmetical results. I've seen the tentative schedule and it's gonna be packed. Website coming up soon, meanwhile I posted CFP at the M-Phi blog, and prepared a Philevents site of the event.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Topological philosophy workshop in Warsaw

Bartłomiej Skowron (Warsaw Technical University) organizes a workshop on topological philosophy. The deadline is quite soon, but if you're around, it might be fun. I'm quoting the invite below.

Are you a student or a PhD student in philosophy/mathematics? Interested in formal philosophy, logical philosophy or mathematical philosophy? Do you also appreciate traditional ontological problems? Do you want to know the latest philosophical insights in topological philosophy? We invite you to participate in a 2-day graduate-level course on topological philosophy. The Graduate School on Topological Philosophy will be held 6-7 February 2016 in Warsaw (Poland). Classes will be conducted by eminent specialists: prof. Thomas Mormann (University of the Basque Country (Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain), prof. Achille Varzi (Columbia University in New York) and Dr. Roland Zarzycki (University of Wrocław, Poland). If you are interested in participating or would like to find out more, please contact Dr. Bartłomiej Skowron (bartlomiej.skowron(at) We accept applications until 20 January 2016. It is not required knowledge of the topology. During the course the basic concepts of topology will be introduced. More information:

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Entia et Nomina V report

Just a couple of days ago I returned from Entia et Nomina V, organized by Leszek Wroński, Jacek Wawer and Juliusz Doboszewski (with the generous support of Tomasz Placek's research grant and Jagiellonian University). I'm a bit of a control freak and this is the first time I let someone else run the show. Despite my initial fears, the organizers have done a wonderful job, probably much better than I would've done. So, big thanks to Leszek, Jacek, Juliusz and Tomasz! Here's a brief account of some of the talks (I'm only mentioning those which I feel not completely incompetent to say something about). The full schedule and links to abstract are available here:

 - Diderik Batens (University of Ghent) talked about adaptive naive set theory, where he used his inconsistency-adaptive logic over naive set theory to obtain an interesting non-trivial theory. My only worry was that he needed three different conditionals to accommodate our naive intuitions.

 - Joanna Luc (Jagiellonian University) used the framework of Belnap and Mueller's Case-Intensional First order Logic to provide a typology of properties that arises from the distinctions present in the system, and investigated whether in natural language we really talk about properties belonging to these types.

- Nina Gierasimczuk (Danish Technical University) discussed fascinating connections between the notion of learnability in the limit and topology.

- Balázs Gyenis (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) discussed the relation between finite Jeffrey and Bayesian conditioning, focusing on regaining the former by means of the latter.

- Pavel Janda (University of Bristol) extended the framework of credences in formal epistemology to Belnap's four-valued logic.

- Michał Godziszewski and Dariusz Kalociński (Warsaw University) discussed the computational complexity of Barwise-like sentences.

- Michał Sikorski (University of Tilburg) presented his modified probabilistic semantics for conditionals.

- Jonathan Payne (University of London) discussed generalizing chance-credence norms to continuous cases.

- Patryk Dziurosz-Serafinowski (University of Groningen) presented his resiliency defence of conditions put on chance by Bigelow et al.

- Michał Godziszewski and Leszek Wroński (University of Warsaw/Jagiellonian University) disproved Feintzeig's conjecture that every generalized probability space satisfying the subadditivity condition has a classical extension.

- Shay Logan (University of Minnesota) extended the Quinean framework of ontological commitment to the model-theoretic (rather than syntactic) account of scientific theories.

- Rafał Gruszczyński (Toruń University) discussed how one can obtain objects to go proxy for points in atomless mereology.

Overall, fun has been had. Stay tuned for the 2016 edition in Warsaw, to be organized by Michał Godziszewski and his colleagues!

Monday, April 27, 2015

Entia et Nomina V CFP

The “Entia et Nomina” series features English language workshops for young researchers in formally oriented philosophy, in particular in logic, philosophy of science, formal epistemology or philosophy of language. The aim of the workshop is to foster cooperation among young philosophers with a formal bent from various research groups. The fourth workshop in the series was Trends in Logic XIV and took place at Ghent University in 20014The fifth workshop in the series will take place from 9 to 11 September 2015 in Krakow, Poland.

The Entia et Nomina V workshop will be preceded by the 4th workshop of The Budapest-Krakow Research Group on Probability, Causality and Determinism (

Extended abstract submission deadline: May 15, 2015.
More details and full CFP at:

Friday, December 5, 2014

My academic anti-lifehacks

I'm an academic productivity hack addict. A failing one. I keep finding new apps that are supposed to help me in my work. I test them and stop using them usually within one or two weeks. I keep finding new advice that sounds brilliant, try to put it in practice, and fail. So I thought, well, whatever I do in some sense works for me. Perhaps instead I should try to figure out what it is that I do that ends up killing all the supposedly good habits I'm trying to acquire and still makes me almost efficient at what I do. So here's a list of weird academic hacks that I came up with, which kind of capture some of my main strategies.
  1. I forget my laptop charger. Every day. If I'm going to work in my office, library, beach shack, gym, or wherever  I decide to work, I make it a point  not to take my laptop charger. It will limit the amount of work I'll do on the laptop (my battery life is around 4-5 hrs), so (1) I'll focus on work and avoid procrastination when I use the laptop, because I am more aware that every minute of my battery life that I spend googling whether a cow without a head is heavier than an average tiger is going to leave me laptopless in my boring office for a minute longer. (2) The usual stuff people do when they procrastinate (such as using internet connection, watching yt videos of hunting turtles, shooting zombies, etc.) drains my battery faster than just typing text on a dimmed screen. (3)  Once my battery dies, I'll have to come up with a more old-school way of spending my time usefully - I'll read a book or a paper I didn't have time to read or build a forest shelter I always dreamt of thus awaking the little Ron Swanson that lives inside my head. Perhaps I might even consider interacting with humans without the mediation of digital technology. Scary stuff.
  2. I forget my laptop. Once a week or so. See point (3) of remark 1. Also, a break from technology will make me feel refreshed. Not to mention that once I sit in front of my laptop the next day, I'll feel more excited about spending the next few hours using it to write.
  3. I do what I want. Seriously. If there is a research task/project that I need to complete, but I don't feel like doing it (and there isn't any real time pressure so I can postpone it a bit), I don't do it. Instead, I focus on some other research/writing task that I feel like working on. If your job is your calling (and if you're a researcher, it should be, why else would anyone want to become one, really), in the end things will balance out. If there is a project I never feel like working on,  I give it up - I  can't be creative or efficient working on it and I can spend my time better being more efficient working on what I love. If in the end things don't balance out, it means I had the wrong job to start with, so it's actually good to be failing, because it'll force me to look for a carrer I'm more destined for and will be happier with.
  4. I don't plan my work. I cannot predict what I will have mood to work on even in a day or two. If I think too much about what to do, I (1) waste my time planning, (2) usually fail to accomplish what I planned anyway, because life is too chaotic and upredictable (and I tend to overestimate what I can really accomplish), (3) I feel forced to work on stuff I planned to do but at a given moment don't want to do (see the point about doing what you want), (4) get frustrated about (2). Discipline is cool if you're a character in a Bruce Lee movie, but in real life instead of making me a research ninja, it's rather likely to make me suicidal.
  5. I plan to work. But only one or two days ahead. That is, I put aside a certain time to work, without deciding what I'll be doing. If I plan more, I run into the troubles mentioned in point 4. If I do not plan to work at all (and I have the attention span of a stoned giraffe), I'll end up spending my days on not doing enough to progress with my  work. If I plan more than two days ahead, again, you might end up wasting my time overthinking things and getting frustrated over unexpected events ruining my work schedule.   
  6. I don't do my homework. Or at least not completely. To write a sensible page of a research paper I need to read around 100 pages of material related to the topic. If I  want to write 15 pages in a paper, this grows to 1500 pages of homework. By the time I finish reading the last paper from the pile I have no idea what was in the first one. Instead of reading all there is about the topic first, I gather the materials, read all abstracts, pick 20 top papers that are most interesting or most relevant to what I want to work on and start writing, reading up as I go.
  7. I write in layers. Writing a research paper is a bit like painting. I think of different papers to refer to as paint colors. I cannot use them all at the same time. I start painting some bits thinking about one paper, put it aside once I've written down all my thoughts resulting from this reading. Then I move on to the next paper, intertwine my  new thoughts with the ones that I already have, and so on. As I proceed, the picture that will arise will become more and more clear - at the end what I have to do is to take a step back, think about the structure and add some finishing strokes.
  8. I don't focus too much. If you think you can be happy and efficient working on one single project for an extended period of time, you're fooling yourself. Or you might be a cylon, get tested. I always have at least two or three significantly different projects to work on, to switch between them when I get bored with what you're doing right now. I always have at least two or three books that I'm reading at the same time.
  9. I assume the reader is an angry, picky, lazy idiot. He's angry, so he'll bitch about any slight mistake I make - I try to avoid the mistakes, but am prepared for some bitchy reviews anyway. He's picky - so there are no small things to be ignored, before I submit I have to have no doubts about any part of what I say in the paper. If there's something I think I could've done better, he'll pick on it, so I try to deal with it before sending the paper off. He's an idiot: I have to repeat my points (tell them what you're gonna do, do that, and then tell them what you've done), make them as clear as possible. He's lazy: if he has to read a few books or papers to understand the paper, he'll rather toss it aside and go for a beer. I try to make the paper as self-contained as possible given the circumstances. 
  10. Perish or perish. If you feel forced to write because your work requires you to publish, or if you choose journals to submit your paper to based on some weird point or ranking system, you're in the game for wrong reasons. I aim for the best journals in my field, but I write and submit stuff only if I think I have something new to say and really feel like writing. And I don't measure the quality of a journal by means of some weird official ranking prepared by people who don't know much about the discipline. To face the truth: in a sense I'll perish anyway, so I might as well not give a damn about ridiculous publishing pressures.

Friday, November 21, 2014

CFP: Applications of Logic in Philosophy and the FOM

Janusz Czelakowski (University of Opole), Tomasz Połacik (University of Silesia) and
Marcin Selinger  (University of Wrocław) organize the 20th edition of their conference. The event takes place in a small town in Polish mountains. Highly recommended. Details: