The Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy is organizing an international conference on Paradox and Logical Revision, July 23-25, 2012.

The topic of the conference is an investigation of the revisionary approach to the semantic and set-theoretic paradoxes. Paradoxes arise, the thought is, because they rely on some invalid, albeit perhaps intuitively valid, inferences. According to paracomplete logicians, for example, the Liar Paradox teaches us that negation fails to satisfy the Law of Excluded Middle. Dually, paraconsistent logicians take it to show that that the law of Ex Contraditione Quodlibet must be given up. Finally, some authors have recently proposed substructural revisions of classical logic. Which of these approaches, if any, is to be preferred? Is the revisionary approach to paradox, in general, viable?


Dr. Corine Besson (Birkbeck).
Prof. Branden Fitelson (Rutgers/MCMP).
Prof. Michael Glanzberg (Northwestern University).
Dr. Mark Jago (University of Nottingham).
Prof. Graham Priest (University of Melbourne, University of St Andrews, CUNY).
Prof. Stephen Read (University of St Andrews). 
Dr. David Ripley (University of Melbourne).
Prof. Stewart Shapiro (Ohio State/St Andrews)
Prof. Keith Simmons (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
Prof. Yannis Stephanou (University of Athens).
Dr. Giulia Terzian (Bristol).
Dr. Zach Weber (University of Otago).
Prof. Alan Weir (University of Glasgow).
Prof. Timothy Williamson (University of Oxford).
Dr. Elia Zardini (University of Aberdeen).