The logic of justification of judicial review

Abstract

We describe a general logical framework, Justification Logic, for reasoning about epistemic justification.Justification Logic is based on classical propositional logic augmented by justification assertions~t:Fthat read t~\emph{is a justification for}~F.Justification Logic absorbs basic principles originating from both mainstream epistemology and the mathematical theory of proofs.It contributes to the studies of the well-known \emph{Justified True Belief vs.~Knowledge} problem.We state a general Correspondence Theorem showing that behind each epistemic modal logic,there is a robust system of justifications.This renders a new, evidence-based foundation for epistemic logic.As a case study, we offer a resolution of the Goldman-Kripke `Red Barn' paradox andanalyze Russell's `prime minister example' in Justification Logic.Furthermore, we formalize the well-known Gettier example and reveal hidden assumptions andredundancies in Gettier's reasoning.