Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Colloquium - January 21, 2026
Non-standard accessibility relations for many-valued modal logics - Edson Bezerra (University of Buenos Aires)
In this talk, we present three-valued modal logics based on the logics LP, K3,
L3, RM3 and LFI1. More specifically, we investigate Kripke models whose
accessibility relation is three-valued. We will show how this move interferes
in the truth conditions of modal formulas and will investigate what are the
modal principles these logics validate.
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Colloquium - January 21, 2026
Non-standard accessibility relations for many-valued modal logics - Edson Bezerra (University of Buenos Aires)
In this talk, we present three-valued modal logics based on the logics LP, K3,
L3, RM3 and LFI1. More specifically, we investigate Kripke models whose
accessibility relation is three-valued. We will show how this move interferes
in the truth conditions of modal formulas and will investigate what are the
modal principles these logics validate.
![Michel Janssen - COI Stories II: Inferences or Incentives?
Recorded as part of the CFvW Colloquium on 04. December 2024
COI Stories II: Inferences or Incentives? - Prof. Dr. Michel Janssen (Lichtenberg Group for History and Philosophy of Physics, University of Bonn & School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Minnesota)
Abstract:
In 2002*, I introduced COI (Common Origin Inference) as a subspecies of IBE (Inference to the Best Explanation). Several of my examples of COIs from the history of science, however, were not really about inference. In these examples, COI served not so much to increase the degree of belief in the inferred explanation as to establish the pursuit-worthiness of that explanation. In view of this (and sticking to the acronyms), I argue that we should allow the ‘I’ in both COI and IBE to stand not only for ‘Inference’ but also for ‘Incentive’ (to pursue some [common-origin] explanation). In science, the ‘I’ in most cases stands for ‘Incentive’. Switching from ‘Inference’ to ‘Incentive’ provides an answer to an objection to IBE articulated most forcefully by Wesley Salmon in 2001: Why should an elegant explanation be more likely than an ugly one? Or, to rephrase Salmon’s question in the terminology introduced by Peter Lipton, a staunch defender of IBE: why should likeliness track loveliness? Interpreting the ‘I’ in COI and IBE as ‘Incentive’, one can take the position that pursuit-worthiness tracks loveliness, which is more plausible.
* COI Stories: Explanation and Evidence in the History of Science. Perspectives on Science. The MIT Press Volume 10, Number 4, Winter 2002 pp. 457-522, muse.jhu.edu/article/43975
Explore our colloquium schedule on our website: https://uni-tuebingen.de/en/research/centers-and-institutes/carl-friedrich-von-weizsaecker-center/news-and-events/carl-friedrich-von-weizsaecker-colloquium Michel Janssen - COI Stories II: Inferences or Incentives?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xy1SlsbWzDc/mqdefault.jpg)



