UNILOG is a series of world events. Since the first edition in 2005 in Montreux\, Switzerland\, it has gathered many famous researchers: Saul Kripke\, Jaakko Hintikka\, Yuri Gurevich\, Rohit Parikh\, Michael Dunn\, Dov Gabbay\, Wilfrid Hodges\, Hartry Field\, Pierre Cartier\, Krister Segerberg\, Melvin Fitting\, Gerhrad Jaeger\, Hiroakira Ono\, Daniele Mundici\, Jan Wolenski\, Patrick Blackburn\, John Corcoran\, Heinrich Wansing\, David Makinson\, Newton da Costa\, Peter Schroeder Heister\, Gö\;ran Sundholm\, Didier Dubois\, Arnon Avron\, Volker Peckhaus\, Graham Priest\, Benedikt Lö\;we\, Stepen Read\, Gila Sher\, Jonathan Seldin\, Sun-Joo Shin\, Bruno Poizat\, Sara Negri\, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen\, Valentin Goranko\, Yde Venema\, Jouko Vä\;ä\;nä\;nen and more ...

UNILOG promotes logic in all its aspects: mathematical\, philosophical\, computational\, semiological\, historical\, and the relation between logic and other fields: physics\, biology\, economics\, law\, politics\, religion\, music\, literature\, pedagogy\, color theory\, medicine\, psychology\, psychoanalysis\, cognitive science\, architecture\, artificial intelligence\, sociology\, linguistics\, anthropology.

UNILOG is a combination of a congress and a school. There is also a secret speaker and the world logic prizes contest. During the congress there are many workshops.

For more details see

"Universal Logic : Evolution of a Project"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11787-018-0194-7

"Logic Prizes et Caetera"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11787-018-0215-6

"1st World Logic Day: 14 January 2019"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11787-019-00221-5

A workshop on Axiomatic Method will be held as a part of School and Congress on Universal Logic during the period of 6-11 April\, 2022 (the exact dates will be decided later on) in the premises of the Orthodox Academy of Crete\, Greece. \;

\n \; Please\, send your submissions (short abstract) to Andrei Rodin at \;andrei@philomatica.org. \;The deadline for submissions is \;**December 15**. The notification date is December 20. \; \; For further details of the workshop see \;https://sites.google.com/view/unilog-2022/workshops/axiomatic-method For details of School&\;Congress see \;https://sites.google.com/view/unilog-2022/welcome

Love and Logic can be seen as opposed or intertwined. If human beings are characterized as rational animals and if love is considered as a typical feature of those animals\, there must be some connections between the two.

\nThe aim of this workshop is to investigate these connections.

\nThose interested in logic and love are invited to submit their proposals on any aspect related to this subject. Topics may include\, but are not restricted to:

\n&bull\; Reason\, Emotion\, Irrationality of Love

\n&bull\; The Mechanisms of Love

\n&bull\; Passion for Logic

\n&bull\; Logic\, Symbolism and Love

\n&bull\; \; Love\, Chance and Logic

\n&bull\; The Implications and Consequences of Love

\n&bull\; Love and Contradiction

\n&bull\; The Logical Relations between the different Kinds of Love

\n&bull\; Universal Love and Universal Logic

\nTo submit a contribution\, please send a one-page abstract by Oct 15\, 2021 to: unilog2022@uni-log.org

ORGANIZER;CN=Jean-Yves Beziau;CN=Caroline Pires Ting: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Logic(s) in Defective Science 2022 (LiDS 2022) UID:20310517T012423Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Kolympari Kissamos\, Chania\, Kolymbari\, Greece\, 730 06 DESCRIPTION:This workshop is devoted to exploring connections between non-classical logics and the rational use of defective information in the sciences\, as well as the inferential practices in the sciences&mdash\;particularly\, those which make use of defective information.

\nIn recent years\, there has been increasing interest in the logical constraints of scientific reasoning that make possible the rational use of defective&mdash\;e.g. false\, imprecise\, conflicting\, incomplete\, inconsistent\, partial\, ambiguous\, and vague&mdash\;information in scientific contexts. On the one hand\, for a variety of causes\, scientific information is often inaccurate\, poorly empirically supported\, and not as relevant as it should be. As a matter of fact\, the defective character of scientific data is not only ubiquitous but inevitable. Despite this\, scientists have proven to be able to work with such defects and reach significant degrees of scientific success\, such as accurate predictions\, descriptions\, and explanations. On the other hand\, traditional formal approaches to scientific and&mdash\;more broadly&mdash\;human reasoning have not fully and properly explained why and how such success is achievable in defective contexts. However\, recent works in philosophical logic have shown that any successful analysis of scientific reasoning must pay attention to: (i) the ways in which evidence and probability are actually employed in scientific practice\, (ii) the logical connections that underlie different types of scientific explanations\, as well as (iii) the historical evidence that shows that defective science is much more common in normal science than it is assumed in traditional approaches.

\nThe purpose of this workshop is to discuss novel non-classical formal approaches to the use of defective information in the sciences. Particularly relevant for this assessment is the fact that different standpoints from logic and philosophy of science may provide novel methodological resources for providing fine-grained analyses of the scientific activity as well as heuristics for scientific practice.

ORGANIZER;CN=Luis Felipe Bartolo Alegre;CN="María del Rosario Martínez-Ordaz": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Workshop on Axiomatic Method UID:20310517T012424Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Chania Old Town\, Greece DESCRIPTION:A workshop on Axiomatic Method will be held as a part of School and Congress on Universal Logic during the period of 6-11 April\, 2022 (the exact dates will be decided later on) in the premises of the Orthodox Academy of Crete\, Greece. \;

\n \; Please\, send your submissions (short abstract) to Andrei Rodin at \;andrei@philomatica.org. \;The deadline for submissions is \;**December 15**. The notification date is December 20. \; \; For further details of the workshop see \;https://sites.google.com/view/unilog-2022/workshops/axiomatic-method For details of School&\;Congress see \;https://sites.google.com/view/unilog-2022/welcome

Those interested in analogy are invited to submit their proposals on any aspect related to this subject. Topics may include\, but are not restricted to:

\n- concepts of analogy

\n- theories of analogy

\n- analectics

\n- analogical hermeneutics

\n- analogy vs. univocity and equivocity

\n- applications of analogies

\n- examples of analogies

\n- creativity of analogies

\n- analogies in dialogue

\nTo submit a contribution\, please send a one-page abstract to Katarzyna Gan-Krzywoszyńska: kgank@wp.pl Accepted submissions will be invited to submit a paper to a book or a special issue that will be edited by the organizers after the workshop. For any query\, please contact the organizers of the workshop.

ORGANIZER;CN=Katarzyna Gan-Krzywoszynska;CN="Piotr Leśniewski": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Lewis Carroll's Logic UID:20310517T012426Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Chaniá\, Greece DESCRIPTION:**Lewis Carroll's Logic**

It is well-known that Lewis Carroll\, the famous author of Alice in Wonderland\, was a mathematician and logician. His contributions to logic include a mature system of diagrams\, a subscript notation for categorical propositions\, a pioneering method of logic trees\, a fabulous set of logical exercises and two paradoxes that have been widely discussed by his successors. Carroll&rsquo\;s logic directly related to his other interests and concerns\, notably literature\, mathemat-ics\, and religion. Also\, Carroll believed in the social utility of logic and worked on its popularization to a wid audience.

\nCarroll&rsquo\;s work in mathematics and logic has long been overshadowed by his literary reputation. However\, recent decades witnessed a growing interest in Carroll&rsquo\;s serious writings. It is not rare anymore to meet with an isolated paper on Carroll&rsquo\;s logic at international conferences and journals. The aim of this workshop is to gather contributions and studies related to Carroll&rsquo\;s logic in a single venue\, and thus to encourage scholarship and exchanges on the subject.

\nThose interested in logic and Lewis Carroll are invited to submit their proposals on any aspect related to this subject. Topics may include\, but are not restricted to:

\n&bull\;History of logic

\n&bull\;Logic diagrams

\n&bull\;Logic trees

\n&bull\;Carroll&rsquo\;s paradox

\n&bull\;Logic education

\n&bull\;Logic\, literature\, and the philosophy of language

\n&bull\;Philosophy of mathematics

\n&bull\;Past and Modern applications of Carroll&rsquo\;s logic

\n&bull\;Comparative studies between Carroll and other logicians

\n&bull\;Biographical aspects related to Carroll&rsquo\;s logical work

\n&bull\;Legacy and influence

\nTo submit a contribution\, please send a one-page abstract by the deadline to Amirouche Moktefi at: amirouche.moktefi@taltech.ee

\nAccepted submissions will be invited to submit a paper to a volume on Carroll&rsquo\;s logic that will be edited by the organizers after the workshop.

\nFor any query\, please contact Amirouche Moktefi at the email above.

\n\n**IMPORTANT DATES**

Submission: October 15\, 2021

\nNotification: October 21st\, 2021

\nWorskhop: 6-11 April \, 2022 \;

\n(the workshop will take place at some point \; during the UNILOG congress).

\n\n ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Logics of Oneness UID:20310517T012427Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Orthodox Academy of Crete\, Chaniá\, Greece\, 730 06 DESCRIPTION:The theme of the Workshop &ldquo\;Logics of Oneness&rdquo\; goes back to two fundamental philosophical ideas in connection with a neurophenomenal inquiry:

\n1. \; \; \; \; \; \; It relates to a key concept of Eastern philosophy\, expressing the principle of organic integrity and unity of the world\, which is the basis of world harmony.

\n2. \; \; \; \; \; \; It is associated with the problem of the &lsquo\;One and the Many&rsquo\; in Greek philosophy. The word &ldquo\;Oneness&rdquo\; comes from the Greek term &tau\;ὸ Ἕ&nu\; (&ldquo\;the One&rdquo\;) that means &lsquo\;unit&rsquo\; (&mu\;&omicron\;&nu\;ά&sigmaf\;) or &lsquo\;unity&rsquo\; (&mu\;&omicron\;&nu\;ό&tau\;&eta\;&sigmaf\;).

\n3. \; \; \; \; \; \; It is utilized in neurophenomenology as a key concept which could account for consciousness without contents. Oneness in consciousness would stem from the integration of different parts in oneness.

\nThe phenomena of physical\, intellectual\, and social worlds are commonly treated in terms of a bivalent logic of opposites:

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Union vs. separation.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Community vs. isolation.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Social vs. individual.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Communion vs. loneliness.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Cosmos (universe) vs. (individual) man.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Collective vs. individual mind (consciousness)

\nAt a neurophenomenal level\, this bivalent logic of opposites can be declined as:

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Past vs. future.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Strength vs. mercy.

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Intrinsic vs. extrinsic self-determination.

\nHowever\, Oneness is not the opposite of separateness (in the ontological sense) and loneliness (in the existential sense). Oneness is a special kind of integration\, in which the parts do not dissolve in a whole\, but occupy their exclusive place in it\; moreover\, even if they belong to a whole and obey its order\, they preserve their boundaries\, their separateness and have their essence. Thus\, Oneness does not exclude but **presupposes** a relative integrality and relative independence of the parts.

By &ldquo\;Oneness&rdquo\; is understood a special relationship between the whole and its parts\, the parts as necessary structural constituents of the whole\, and a reflection or &ldquo\;similitude&rdquo\; of the individual parts to the structure and the order of the whole.

\nAt the neurophenomenal level\, &ldquo\;Oneness&rdquo\; could represent the mental side of a neurophysiological integration of different perceptions produced by the different brain regions. From this point of view\, the philosophical concept of Oneness may present a neuronal counterpart.

\nAt the ontological level\, &ldquo\;Oneness&rdquo\; denotes universal integration\, which\, on the one hand\, preserves the meaning and order of the whole\, and on the other hand\, recognizes the value and internal semantic integrality of each part.

\nAt the existential-social level\, &ldquo\;Oneness&rdquo\;\, is a horizon of the individual (as a microcosm)\, a condition and boundaries of its well-being and meaningful existence. Moreover\, so that the individual would be included in the social whole (the society)\, it must experience its separation\, internal integrality\, which is expressed by the feeling of loneliness.

\nThe concept &ldquo\;Oneness&rdquo\;\, when falls under different contexts (metaphysical\, existential-philosophical\, neurophenomenal\, psychological\, socio-philosophical\, logical\, ethnographical\, linguistic\, cultural\, and others)\, is enriched with new interpretations and shades of meaning.

\nThese aspects raise several fundamental questions:

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Are there any common features specific to all forms of &ldquo\;oneness&rdquo\; and &ldquo\;communion&rdquo\; in various neurophenomenal\, philosophical\, psychological\, and societal contexts?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; How can we define the oneness and the cluster of terms: loneliness\, aloneness\, seclusion\, secludedness\, isolation\, solitude\, etc.? Are they comparable?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; How loneliness\, seclusion and creativity are related? Is social seclusion necessary for creativity\, problem-solving and decision making? How does intentionality and free will eventually effect their outcome?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Are there models of human consciousness states space and the self that can represent and explain the vast plurality of real situational phenomena? What is the logic behind them? Is that logic classical or non-classical one? How to they relate to moral development and reactive vs proactive mind?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; How these concepts have been developed and interpreted over time and alongside different cultures? how loneliness is experienced within different communities?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; How these concepts are represented by visual means\, semiotic schemas\, metaphors\, mythical or literature narratives?

\nThe Workshop will attempt to examine these fundamental questions at their philosophical\, neuro-psychological\, and historical aspects.

ORGANIZER;CN=Tal Dotan Ben-Soussan;CN=Tatiana Denisova: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Argumentation Logic UID:20310517T012428Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Kolymvari 730 06\, Greece\, Kolymvari \, Greece\, 730 06 DESCRIPTION:Argumentation logic is a formalized description of the methods in which humans reason and argue about their claims with the help of arguments for justifying and persuading.

\nThe workshop &ldquo\;Trends in argumentation logic&rdquo\; TrAL invites interdisciplinary contributions from logic\, argumentation\, artificial intelligence\, computer science\, philosophy\, linguistics\, psychology\, law\, and other areas studying logic and argumentation. Suggested topics include\, but are not limited to the following:

\n- Abstract argumentation

\n- Formal\, semi-formal and informal models for argumentation

\n- Defeasible reasoning

\n- Argumentation and philosophy

\n- Argumentation and law

\n- Argumentation and linguistics

\n- Argumentation and medical reasoning

\n- Argumentation in AI

\n- Argumentation and Non-monotonic Reasoning

\n- Argumentation in agent and multi-agent systems

\n- Decision making based on argumentation

\n- Computational argumentation

\n- Protocols for argument-based agent interaction

\nSubmission: send a one page abstract to both

TrAL workshop (

UNILOG 2022 (

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission: October 15\, 2021

Notification: October 21st\, 2021

Camera-Ready: November 21st\, 2021

Workshop: 6-11 April \, 2022 (the workshop will take place during the UNILOG congress).

Although the concept of proof is the heart of mathematics\, science\, logic and generally all rational human activity\, there is no generally accepted definition of &ldquo\;what proof is&rdquo\; and what has it been in history and across different cultures. In different fields\, there are distinct definitions or requirements as to what constitutes proof.

\nIn mathematics\, proof establishes the truth of a proposition on the grounds of already established true propositions or axioms. However\, what constitutes proof for a classical mathematician\, maybe not acceptable by another (e.g. a constructive) mathematician. What constitutes proof for a mathematician of antiquity (e.g. Euclid) maybe not rigorous enough for a mathematician of modern times (e.g. Hilbert). Truth in Greek geometry is established by geometric axiom-based reasoning over abstract entities\, whereas in the East (China\, Japan) truth is never founded on axiomatic assumptions.On the other hand\, the appearance of computer-assisted proofs in the 1970s highlighted the role of human understanding of proof as a means of its validation and recognition by the mathematical community.

\nIn the physical sciences\, scientific proof can be grounded on experimental data and observations. The philosophical proof is an inference concluded from a series of fundamental\, plausible arguments that can typically be considered persuasive. Legal proofs are reached by a jury on the grounds of allowable evidence presented at a trial. Proofs in computing can be programs that prove the properties of systems.

\nIn the history of mathematics\, mathematical proofs involve many informal components\, a kind of rigour that is independent of complete formalization and some kind of &ldquo\;meaning&rdquo\; or semantic content that is transmitted through a &ldquo\;text&rdquo\; and calls its reader for understanding and verification. Moreover\, proofs are often conducted under different (local) *logics* and formulated in distinct *styles* of reasoning by using diverse mediums and codes of communication in different cultures in history.

If proof is part of logic\, then the problem is ultimately reducible to the question &ldquo\;what logic is?&rdquo\; But there is no consensus either on the question of what logic is. For instance\, the model-theoretic understanding of logic (&ldquo\;a logic is something that has syntax and semantics&rdquo\;) is different from the proof-theoretic understanding (&ldquo\;logic is a deductive system that has the cut-elimination property&rdquo\;).

\nFurthermore\, proofs can be carried out within different logics\, and thereby establishing different *kinds of truth*\, for instance\, classical truths\, constructive truths\, probabilistic (statistical) truths\, modal truths\, paraconsistent truths\, etc.\, which might be understood and accepted only by the community\, who reason within the corresponding logic. On the other hand\, proofs can be codified and communicated in different styles: Hilbert-style proofs\, natural-deduction proofs\, sequent-calculus proofs\, tableau proofs\, etc.\, also informal and meta-mathematical proofs\, philosophical argumentation written up in a blend of natural and sign languages. The same proof can be exposed in different formal or informal ways\, but even in a single formalism\, the same proof can take different forms.

This picture raises several fundamental questions:

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Are there any common features specific to all proofs in all logics?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; How can we identify proofs and how can we distinguish between proofs carried out in different logics at different times within distinct cultures? Are they comparable?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Is there any &ldquo\;least common denominator&rdquo\; for a definition of proof carried out in different logics?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Is the identity of logics necessary to conclude the identity of different proofs or arguments communicated within different logical systems?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; On what ground can we claim that some proof or argument communicated in the past is the same\, similar (&ldquo\;isomorphic&rdquo\;)\, or equivalent with a proof exposed or re-phrased in modern formalism?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Can identification of proofs in logic be used for identifying real mathematical proofs?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Can mathematical or scientific proofs be carried out without appeal to any logic? Are there historical cases of such development?

\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; How proof in mathematics and logic has been understood in different historical times and across cultures?

\nThe Workshop will attempt to examine these fundamental questions\, not only at a purely logical level but also at their philosophical and historical aspects. It will also examine questions beyond the so-called &ldquo\;pure mathematics&rdquo\;\, in the field of mathematical and physical sciences\, as well as discussions of philosophical and methodological views on proof and styles of proof\, as well as on the nature of mathematical objects.

ORGANIZER;CN=Jens Lemanski;CN=Ioannis Vandoulakis: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Workshop on Logic and Love UID:20310517T012430Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Kolympari\, Chania Old Town\, Greece DESCRIPTION:Love and Logic can be seen as opposed or intertwined. If human beings are characterized as rational animals and if love is considered as a typical feature of those animals\, there must be some connections between the two.

\nThe aim of this workshop is to investigate these connections.

\nThose interested in logic and love are invited to submit their proposals on any aspect related to this subject. Topics may include\, but are not restricted to:

\n&bull\; Reason\, Emotion\, Irrationality of Love

\n&bull\; The Mechanisms of Love

\n&bull\; Passion for Logic

\n&bull\; Logic\, Symbolism and Love

\n&bull\; \; Love\, Chance and Logic

\n&bull\; The Implications and Consequences of Love

\n&bull\; Love and Contradiction

\n&bull\; The Logical Relations between the different Kinds of Love

\n&bull\; Universal Love and Universal Logic

\nTo submit a contribution\, please send a one-page abstract by Oct 15\, 2021 to: unilog2022@uni-log.org

ORGANIZER;CN=Jean-Yves Beziau;CN=Caroline Pires Ting: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Refutation: 100 Years of Refutation UID:20310517T012431Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Chaniá\, Greece ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20220125T103404Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220406T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20220411T170000 SUMMARY:Reasoning in Text (UNILOG 2022) UID:20310517T012432Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-7fb5f699f4-qsvp2 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Orthodox Academy\, Kolimvárion\, Greece DESCRIPTION:In order to correctly assess a reasoning expressed in natural language\, it is important to grasp and reconstruct its logical structure. The first step is to identify the elements of a particular reasoning like claims\, premises and conclusions\, reasons and consequences\, as well as starting and ending points.

\nParticularly important elements for achieving this goal are inference indicators\, i.e. words like &ldquo\;therefore&rdquo\;\, &ldquo\;because&rdquo\; etc. They enable us to create the representation of reasoning which clearly shows the relationships between its elements.

\nOne of the popular tools for representing argument structure are argument diagrams. However\, if we try to model various types of reasoning expressed in texts\, we face serious challenges\, for instance:

1) \; \; \;what theory of reasoning to adopt\;

2) \; \; \;how to reconstruct missing parts of a reasoning\;

3) \; \; \;how to model a reasoning in text (diagrams\, maps\, formal languages)\;

4) \; \; \;how to represent a reductive progressive reasoning (called &ldquo\;explanation&rdquo\; or &ldquo\;abduction&rdquo\;)\;

5) \; \; \;how to interpret particular possible inference indicators (such as &ldquo\;since&hellip\;&rdquo\;\, &ldquo\;for&hellip\;&rdquo\;) and additional operators (like &ldquo\;it is known that&rdquo\;\, &ldquo\;it is silly to think that&rdquo\;)\;

6) \; \; \;to what extent natural reasoning should be supplemented with hidden premises

The aim of the workshop is to map the problems and discuss possible approaches and solutions. We invite submissions of contributed papers on topics including but not restricted to:

● \; \; \;Text and reading its structure\;

● \; \; \;Techniques of visual representation of reasoning\;

● \; \; \;Diagrams and classification of reasonings\;

● \; \; \;Inference indicators in natural language\, different types of reasonings as speech acts\;

● \; \; \;Modal and quasi-modal operators in natural reasoning\;

● \; \; \;Applications of reasoning visual representation

To submit a contribution\, please send a one-page abstract to: reasoningintext@gmail.com

\nAccepted submissions will be invited to submit a paper to a book or a special issue that will be edited by the organizers after the workshop. For any query\, please contact the organizers of the workshop.

\nIMPORTANT DATES

\nSubmission: January 21\, 2022

Notification: January 28\, 2022

Workshop: 6-11 April \, 2022 \; (the workshop will take place at some point \; during the UNILOG congress).

Early Bird Reduced Fees for the accepted contributors by February 7\, 2022