Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 385–397 | Cite as

Recent Developments in Computing and Philosophy

  • Anthony F. Beavers

Defining the Field

Because the label “computing and philosophy” can seem like an ad hoc attempt to tie computing to philosophy, it is important to explain why it is not, what it studies (or does) and how it differs from research in, say, “computing and history”, or “computing and biology”. The American Association for History and Computing is “dedicated to the reasonable and productive marriage of history and computer technology for teaching, researching and representing history through scholarship and public history” ( More pervasive, work in computing and biology enjoys the convenient name of “bioinformatics…the science of using information to understand biology…, a subset of the larger field of computational biology, the application of quantitative analytical techniques in modeling biological systems” ( The recent venture of the Association for Computing Machinery and the Institute of Electrical and...


Object Theory Automate Reasoning Philosophical Research Clausal Normal Form Philosophical Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, C., et al. (2008). The world is not flat: Expertise and InPhO. First Monday 13(8).Google Scholar
  2. Audi, R. (1997). The place of testimony in the fabric of justification and knowledge. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 405–422.Google Scholar
  3. Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics and Information Technology, 96(2), 231–260.Google Scholar
  4. Barker-Plummer, D., et al. (2008). Openproof: A flexible framework for heterogeneous reasoning. In J. Howse, J. Lee & G. Stapleton (Eds.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams. Diagrams 2008 LNAI 5223 (pp .347–349).Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, T., et al. (2011). Using Markov decision processes for student problem-solving visualization and automatic hint generation. In C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. Baker (Eds.), Handbook on educational data mining (pp. 467–480). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beavers, A. (2011). Noesis and the encyclopedic Internet vision. Synthese, 182(2), 315–333.Google Scholar
  7. Bourget, D. (2010). Paperless philosophy as a philosophical method. The Journal of Social Epistemology, 24(4), 363–375.Google Scholar
  8. Bringsjord, S. (2008). Declarative/logic-based computational cognitive modeling. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 127–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buckner, C., et al. (2011). From encyclopedia to ontology: Toward dynamic representation of the discipline of philosophy. Synthese, 182(2), 205–233.Google Scholar
  10. Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croy, M., et al. (2008). Towards an intelligent tutoring system for propositional proof construction. In A. Briggle, K. Waelbers, & P. Brey (Eds.), Computing and philosophy (pp. 145–155). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ess, C. (forthcoming). Trust and new communication technologies: Vicious circles, virtuous circles, possible futures. Knowledge, Technology and Policy.Google Scholar
  13. Fitelson, B., & Zalta, E. (2007). Steps toward a computational metaphysics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Floridi, L. (Ed.). (2010a). The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Floridi, L. (2010b). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Floridi, L. (2011). The Philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gambetta, D. (1998). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213–238). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Grim, P. (1993). Self-reference and chaos in fuzzy logic. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grim, P. (1995). The greater generosity of the spatialized prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 173, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grim, P. (1996). Spatialization and greater generosity in the stochastic prisoner’s dilemma. BioSystems, 37, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grim, P. (1997). Undecidability in the spatialized prisoner’s dilemma. Theory and Decision, 42, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grim, P. (2008). Lessons from networks: Cooperation, communication, and epistemology. University of Pennsylvania, May: Formal Methods in Philosophy Workshop.Google Scholar
  23. Grim, P. (2009a). Network simulations and their philosophical implications: Models for semantics, pragmatics, and epistemology. Models and Simulations 3 Conference, University of Virginia, March 6–8.Google Scholar
  24. Grim, P. (2009b). Philosophical implications of interaction and information networks. Evolution, Game Theory & the Social Contract Conference, University of California, Irvine, March 26–29.Google Scholar
  25. Grim, P. (2010). Modeling the dynamics of belief networks. In North American Computing and Philosophy Conference, Carnegie Mellon University, July 24–26.Google Scholar
  26. Grim, P., et al. (2010). Developing an agent-based model to assess racial differences in medical discrimination, social support, and trust. Wrap-Up Session for the 2009–2010 Computational Modeling Pilot Grants, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.Google Scholar
  27. Grim, P., & Mar, G. (1991). Pattern and chaos: New images in the semantics of paradox. Noûs, 25, 659–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grim, P., et al. (1993). Self-reference and paradox in two and three dimensions. Computers and Graphics, 17, 609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grim, P., et al. (1998). The philosophical computer: Exploratory essays in philosophical computer modeling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics and Information Technology, 107(1), 4–25.Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Niepert, M., et al. (2007). A dynamic ontology for a dynamic reference work. In E. Rasmussen, R. Larson, E. Toms, & S. Sugimoto (Eds.). Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 288–297). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Nissenbaum, H. (2001). Securing trust online: Wisdom or oxymoron. Boston University Law Review, 81(3), 635–664.Google Scholar
  34. Oppenheimer, P., & Zalta, E. (1991). On the logic of the ontological argument. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oppenheimer, P., & Zalta, E. (2011a). A computationally-discovered simplification of the ontological argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89(2), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oppenheimer, P., & Zalta, E. (2011b). Relations versus functions at the foundations of logic: Type-theoretic considerations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 21, 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parkinson, G., (Ed., Trans.). (1966). Leibniz: Logical papers. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  38. Pelletier, F., & Zalta, E. (2000). How to say goodbye to the third man. Noûs, 34(2), 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, B. (1908). Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics, 30, 222–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seig, W. (2007). AProS project: Strategic thinking & computational logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 15, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharkey, N. (2007). Automated killers and the computing profession. IEEE Computer Magazine, 40(11), 122–123.Google Scholar
  42. Sharkey, N. (2008a). The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science, 322, 1800–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharkey, N. (2008b). Grounds for discrimination: Autonomous robot weapons. RUSI Defence Systems, 11(2), 86–89.Google Scholar
  44. Sharkey, N. (2009a). Death strikes from the sky: The calculus of proportionality. IEEE Science and Society, 28, 16–19.Google Scholar
  45. Sharkey, N. (2009b). A matter of precision. Defence Management Journal, 47, 126–128.Google Scholar
  46. Sharkey, N. (2009c). Weapons of indiscriminate lethality. FIfF Kommunikation, 1(09), 26–28.Google Scholar
  47. Sharkey, N. (forthcoming). Killing made easy: from joystics to politics. In P. Lin, G. Bekey, & K. Abney (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2010). Living with robots: Ethical tradeoffs in eldercare. In Y. Wilks (Ed.), Close engagements with artificial companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues (pp. 245–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  49. Sharkey, N., et al. (2010). The coming robot crimewave. IEEE Computer Magazine, 43(8), 114–115.Google Scholar
  50. Stamper, J., et al. (2010). Enhancing the automatic generation of hints with expert seeding. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6095, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stenning, K., & Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  52. Taddeo, M. (2009). Defining trust and e-trust: Old theories and new problems. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 5(2), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taddeo, M. (2010). Modelling trust in artificial agents: A first step toward the analysis of e-trust. Minds and Machines, 20(2), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turilli, M., et al. (2010). The case of on-line trust. Knoweldge Technology and Policy, 231(3–4), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weckert, J. (2005). Trust in cyberspace. In R. Cavalier (Ed.), The impact of the Internet on our moral lives (pp. 95–120). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zalta, E. (1983). Abstract objects: An introduction to axiomatic metaphysics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  57. Zalta, E. (1988). Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Zalta, E. (1993). Twenty-five basic theorems in situation and world theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, 385–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zalta, E. (2000). A (Leibnizian) theory of concepts. Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse, 3, 137–183.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital Humanity LaboratoryThe University of EvansvilleEvansvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations