Unlike many relevance logicians, I'm not in it for the relevance. I'm in it for the semantics. So my work ends up motivated by metaphysical, linguistic, and epistemic concerns.
In a nutshell, here's how to get from semantics to relevance. First, connect conditionality to compatibility. Second, notice that compatibility is a ternary relation. Worlds are not compatible with one another on their own. They are compatible with one another relative to another world. Taking these things seriously gets you (I claim) to propositional RW. To get first-order semantics, use honest-to-god arbitrary elements to define truth for quantified sentences.
I have three papers related to this work currently either under review or in revision. I am also coauthoring two related textbooks. The first, This is Philosophy of Logic, is under contract with Wiley. The second, Introduction to Relevance Logic, is under contract with Routledge. I am interested in collaborating on further projects in this vein. I would be particularly excited to work on a book on quantification in substructural logics. Drop me a line if that sounds like fun to you!
Want to hang out? Here are some ways to make it happen:
- In October, I'll be giving a Skype talk in the Melbourne Logic Group. If all goes well, I'll present a constant-domain semantics for first-order RW there.
- In January I'll be at the Eastern APA. I'll be talking about how to look for logics.
- A bit later in January, I'll be at the ASL meeting at the JMM, where I'll be back to talking about constant-domain semantics for contractionless relevance logics.