We outline a class of term-languages for epistemic grounding inspired by Prawitz’s theory of grounds. We show how denotation functions can be defined over these languages, relating terms to proof-objects built up of constructive functions. We discuss certain properties that the languages may enjoy both individually and with respect to their expansions. Finally, we provide a ground-theoretic version of Prawitz’s completeness conjecture, and adapt to our framework a refutation of this conjecture due to Piecha and Schroeder-Heister.

We define a class of formal systems inspired by Prawitz’s theory of grounds. The latter is a semantics that aims at accounting for epistemic grounding, namely, at explaining why and how deductively valid inferences have the power to epistemically compel to accept the conclusion. Validity is defined in terms of typed objects, called grounds, that reify evidence for given judgments. An inference is valid when a function exists from grounds for the premises to grounds for the conclusion. Grounds are described (...) by formal terms, either directly when the terms are in canonical form, or indirectly when they are in non-canonical form. Non-canonical terms must reduce to canonical form, and two terms may be said to be equal when they converge towards equivalent grounds. In our systems these properties can be proved through rules distinguished according to whether they concern types or logic. Type rules involve type introduction and elimination, equality for application of operational symbols, and re-writing equations for non-canonical terms. The logic amounts to a sort of intuitionistic system in a Gentzen format. To conclude, we show that each system of our class enjoys a normalization property. (shrink)

We explore the problems that confront any attempt to explain or explicate exactly what a primitive logical rule of inferenceis, orconsists in. We arrive at a proposed solution that places a surprisingly heavy load on the prospect of being able to understand and deal with specifications of rules that are essentiallyself-referring. That is, any rule$\rho $is to be understood via a specification that involves, embedded within it, reference to rule$\rho $itself. Just how we arrive at this position is explained by (...) reference to familiar rules as well as less familiar ones with unusual features. An inquiry of this kind is surprisingly absent from the foundations of inferentialism—the view that meanings of expressions (especially logical ones) are to be characterized by the rules of inference that govern them. (shrink)