Theoretical Philosophy

University of Groningen > Faculty of Philosophy > Theoretical Philosophy

  1. 2021
  2. Keijzer, F. (2021). Uncovering the living body: Bodies and agents in the cognitive sciences. In N. K. Dess (Ed.), A multidisciplinary approach to embodiment: Understanding human being (pp. 40-45). (Advances in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology). Routledge.
  3. 2020
  4. Korecki, M., Gattinger, M., & Verbrugge, R. (2020). Balancing Selfishness and Efficiency in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks: An Agent-based Simulation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence : ICAART (2020) (Vol. 1, pp. 161-168). SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.5220/0008915101610168
  5. Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2020). Be reasonable! Ways to react to cases of presumed unreason. In C. Dutilh Novaes, H. Jansen, J. A. van Laar, & B. Verheij (Eds.), Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 3, pp. 49-62). (Studies in Logic: Logic and Argumentation; Vol. 87). College Publications.
  6. Romeijn, J-W., & Loo, van, H. (2020). Psychiatric classification: an a-reductionist perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication. In K. S. Kendler, J. Parnas, & P. Zachar (Eds.), Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (1 ed., pp. 349-370). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108750349
  7. 2019
  8. Maier, E. (2019). Picturing words: The semantics of speech balloons. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 584-592). https://philpapers.org/rec/MAIPWT
  9. Ayoobi, H., Cao, M., Verbrugge, L., & Verheij, B. (2019). Handling unforeseen failures using argumentation-based learning. In International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) 2019 (pp. 1699-1704). (IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering; Vol. 2019-August). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/COASE.2019.8843207
  10. Proietti, C., Grossi, D., Smets, S., & Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2019). Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, Modal Logic and Semantic Paradoxes. In P. Blackburn, E. Lorini, & M. Guo (Eds.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction - 7th International Workshop, LORI 2019, Proceedings (pp. 214-229). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Vol. 11813 LNCS). SPRINGER. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_16
  11. Ozyildiz, D., Major, T., & Maier, E. (2019). Communicative reception reports as hear-say: Evidence from indexical shift in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 296-305). Cascadilla Press. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004260
  12. Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2019). Introduction: Dans le bourbier des arguties. In M-N. Doutreix, C. Jeandot, L. Petters, & L. Soryano (Eds.), Pinailler: Entre souci de précision et bavardage (pp. 1-28). (Les Cahiers; No. 23-24). Sens Public.
  13. van Laar, J. A. (2019). Middle Ground: Settling a public controversy by means of a reasonable compromise. In J. A. Blair (Ed.), Studies in Critical Thinking (pp. 69-80). (Windsor Studies in Argumentation; Vol. 8). Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric.
  14. van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2019). Pressure and argumentation in Public Controversies. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & J. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 702-709). Sic Sat, International Centre for the Study of Argumentation. http://cf.hum.uva.nl/issa/ISSA_2018_proceedings_pdf
  15. 2018
  16. de Vos, M., Kooi, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2018). Provability logic meets the knower paradox. In G. D’Agostino, & G. Bezhanishvilii (Eds.), Advances in Modal Logic 2018: Accepted Short Papers (pp. 31-35). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
  17. Szymanik, J., & Verbrugge, R. (2018). Tractability and the computational mind. In M. Sprevak, & M. Colombo (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Computational Mind (1st Editon ed., pp. 339-353). Routledge.
  18. Keijzer, F. (2018). Beyond brain-body dualism: Neural signaling inside and outside the brain. In D. S. Adams, & M. Levin (Eds.), Ahead of the Curve, Vol. 2: Hidden breakthroughs in the biosciences IoP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-1677-4ch6
  19. van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2018). Criticism and Justification of Negotiated Compromises. In S. Oswald, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 2, pp. 887-907). (Studies in Logic: Logic and Argumentation; Vol. 77). College Publications.
  20. Henderson, L. (2018). Global versus local arguments for scientific realism. In J. Saatsi (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism (Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy). Routledge.
  21. Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2018). In the Quagmire of Quibbles. In S. Oswald, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumenation (Vol. 1, pp. 283-303). (Studies in Logic: Logic and Argumentation; Vol. 76). College Publications.
  22. Maier, E. (2018). Lying and Fiction. In J. Meibauer (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Lying (pp. 303-314). Oxford University Press.
  23. van Ditmarsch, H., Hoek, W. V. D., & Kooi, B. (2018). Playing Cards with Hintikka: An Introduction to Dynamic Epistemic Logic. In H. van Ditmarsch, & G. Sandu (Eds.), Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game-Theoretical Semantics (pp. 237-262). (Outstanding Contributions to Logic; Vol. 12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62864-6_9
  24. 2017
  25. Maier, E. (2017). The pragmatics of attraction: explaining unquotation in direct and free indirect discourse. In P. Saka, & M. Johnson (Eds.), The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation (pp. 259-280). (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_9
  26. Henderson, L. (2017). Global versus local arguments for realism. In J. Saatsi (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism (pp. 151-163). Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712498
  27. Veltman, K., Weerd ,de, H., & Verbrugge, R. (2017). Socially smart software agents entice people to use higher-order theory of mind in the Mod game. In B. Verheij, & M. Wiering (Eds.), Preproceedings of the 29th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC'2017) (pp. 253-267). University of Groningen.
  28. Ghosh, S., Heifetz, A., Verbrugge, R., & de Weerd, H. (2017). What Drives People's Choices in Turn-Taking Games, if not Game-Theoretic Rationality? In J. Lang (Ed.), Proceedings 16th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2017), Liverpool, U.K.: Proceedings (Vol. 251, pp. 265-284). (Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (EPTCS); Vol. 251). Open Publishing Association. https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.251.19
  29. Henderson, L. (2017). Bayesianism and Inference to the Best Explanation: The Case of Individual vs. Group Selection. In K. McCain, & T. Poston (Eds.), Best Explanations: New Essays on Inference to the Best Explanation (pp. 248-262). Oxford University Press.
  30. van Ditmarsch, H., Hartley, M. I., Kooi, B., Welton, J., & Yeo, J. B. W. (2017). Cheryl's birthday. In J. Lang (Ed.), Proceedings Sixteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2017) (pp. 1-9). (Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science; Vol. 251). Open Publishing Association. https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.251.1
  31. van Laar, J. (2017). Connection premises: Their character, criticism, and defence. In C. Ilie, & G. Garzone (Eds.), Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 39-55). (Argumentation in Context; Vol. 10). John Benjamins Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.03van
  32. Van De Putte, F., Tamminga, A., & Duijf, H. (2017). Doing without nature. In A. Baltag, J. Seligman, & T. Yamada (Eds.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction: 6th International Workshop, LORI 2017 (pp. 209-223). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 10455). Springer.
  33. Dutilh Novaes, C., & Bosman, B. (2017). Formal, material, and hybrid grounding for consequence: Peter Abelard and John Buridan. In C. Grellard (Ed.), Miroir de l’amitié: Mélanges offerts à Joël Biard (pp. 229-241). (Études de Philosophie Médiévale; Vol. 106). Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.
  34. Henderson, L. (2017). Global vs. local arguments for realism. In J. Saatsi (Ed.), Routledge Handbook for Scientific Realism (Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy). Routledge.
  35. Dutilh Novaes, C., & Geerdink, L. (2017). The Dissonant Origins of Analytic Philosophy: Common Sense in Philosophical Methodology. In S. LaPointe, & C. Pincock (Eds.), Innovations in the History of Analytical Philosophy (pp. 69-102). (Innovations in Philosophy). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40808-2_3
  36. Dutilh Novaes, C. (2017). The form of a syllogism: mood or figure? . In L. Cesalli, F. Goubier, & A. De Libera (Eds.), Formal Approaches and Natural Language in Medieval Logic: Proceedings of the XIXth European Symposium of Medieval Logic and Semantics, Geneva, 12-16 June 2012 (pp. 117-132). (Textes et Etudes du Moyen Âge (TEMA); Vol. 82). Brepols Publishers.
  37. Dutilh Novaes, C. (2017). The syllogism as defined by Aristotle, Ockham, and Buridan. In J. Pelletier, & M. Roques (Eds.), The Language of Thought in Late Medieval Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Claude Panaccio (pp. 217-232). (Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action; Vol. 5). Springer.
  38. Romeijn, J. (2017). Zelfoverschatting. In M. Geels, & T. van Opijnen (Eds.), Nederland in Ideeën Maven Publishing.
  39. 2016
  40. van Wijnbergen-Huitink, J. (2016). Subjective meaning: an introduction. In J. van Wijbergen-Huitink, & C. Meier (Eds.), Subjective Meaning: Alternatives to Relativism (pp. 1-19). (Linguistische Arbeiten). De Gruyter Mouton.
  41. Maier, E. (2016). Why my I is your you: On the communication of de se attitudes. In M. García-Carpintero, & S. Torre (Eds.), About Oneself: De Se Thought and Communication (pp. 220-245). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198713265.003.0009
  42. van Laar, J. (2016). Commentary on Douglas Walton, Alice Toniolo and Timothy J. Norman’s paper “Speech acts and burden of proof in computational models of deliberation dialogue”. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 777-780). College Publications.
  43. van Laar, J. A. (2016). Commentary on Ralph H. Johnson’s “On Distinguishing Between an Objection and a Criticism”. In P. Bondy, & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016 (pp. 1-4). OSSA.
  44. Geurts, B., Beaver, D., & Maier, E. (2016). Discourse Representation Theory. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: (Spring 2016 Edition) Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/discourse-representation-theory/
  45. van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2016). Eerlijke en oneerlijke strategieën in maatschappelijke discussies. In D. Van De Mierop, L. Buysse, R. Coesemans, & P. Gillaerts (Eds.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 131-143). Uitgeverij Acco.
  46. Peeters, J., & Romeijn, J-W. (2016). Epistemic considerations about uncertainty and model selection in computational archaeology: A case study on exploratory modeling. In M. Brouwer Burg, H. Peeters, & W. Lovis (Eds.), Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Archaeological Computational Modeling (pp. 37-58). (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology ). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_3
  47. van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2016). Fair and Unfair Strategies in Public Controversies: The Case of Induced Earthquakes. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 343-362). (Studies in Logic ; Vol. 62). College Publications.
  48. Dutilh Novaes, C. (2016). Five questions in the philosophy of logic. In T. Lupher, & T. Adajian (Eds.), Philosophy of Logic: 5 Questions Automatic Press/VIP.
  49. Dutilh Novaes, C., & Uckelman, S. (2016). Obligationes. In C. Dutilh Novaes, & S. Read (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic (pp. 370-395). (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449862.016
  50. Romeijn, J. (2016). Preface. In Logic of Statistical Inference (2 ed.). (Cambridge Philosophy Classics). Cambridge University Press.
  51. van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2016). Reply to David Godden’s Commentary on “Splitting a Difference of Opinion”. In P. Bondy, & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016 (pp. 1-3). OSSA.
  52. van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2016). Splitting a Difference of Opinion. In P. Bondy, & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016 (pp. 1-19). OSSA.
  53. Bewersdorf, B. (2016). Total Evidence, Uncertainty and A Priori Beliefs. In L. Felline, A. Ledda, F. Paoli, & E. Rossanese (Eds.), New Directions in Logic and the Philosophy of Science (pp. 57-66). (The SILFS series ; Vol. 3). College Publications.
  54. 2015
  55. Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2015). That’s No Argument! The Ultimate Criticism? In B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 793-804). Sic Sat, International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

ID: 9480