Conditionals II: no truth conditions?


 Candice Beasley
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Conditionals II: no truth conditions? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Arguments for the material conditional analysis As Edgington [1] notes, there are some powerful reasons for thinking that the material conditional analysis is right. The ortoif inference seems good: ortoif inference And so does the notand inference: A B if A,B (A B) if A, B notand inference If either of these are valid entailments, they show that A B entails if A,B. And we ve already seen that if A,B has to entail A B, if Modus Ponens is to be valid for the indicative conditional. If all of these are valid entailments, the indicative conditional is equivalent to the material conditional. Can you think of a case where you d be reluctant to make any of these inferences? In the section on relevance, we learned to be skeptical about drawing conclusions about entailment from intuitions about the goodness of inferences. So there is room for maneuver here: we could try to explain why the ortoif and notand inferences are good modes of reasoning without taking them to be valid. We ll see a couple examples of this a bit later. 2 Arguments against the material conditional analysis We ve seen how Thomson (and Grice) try to explain away the counterintuitive consequences of the material conditional analysis. Edgington points out that their story can at best explain why we refrain from asserting conditionals when we only know that their antecedents are false or their consequents true. So she proposes to focus on other things: when do we accept them? (believe them) when do we reject them? (disbelieve them) when do we think them likely/unlikely? 2.1 Questionnaire The questionnaire [1, p. 33] is a way of filtering out conversational norms (you re not making an assertion, just indicating which you think is true). April 27,
2 2.2 Partial acceptance 1. The Republicans will win (R). No 2. The Republicans won t win ( R). Yes 3. Either the Republicans won t win or it will be sunny tomorrow. ( R S) Yes 4. If the Republicans win, the Obama Health care plan will be expanded. (if R, E) No Here we see a difference between disjunctions and conditionals: In the case of disjunctions, the predicted Gricean contrast between what is reasonable to believe and what it is reasonable to say, given one s grounds, is discernible. In the case of conditionals, it is not. [1, p. 33] 2.2 Partial acceptance If you think about states of partial acceptance, conditionals don t behave as the material analysis suggests. Example: (1) If I flip this coin, it will land heads. Edgington says: you should have about 50% confidence in this, if you think it s a fair coin. And this confidence should not depend on how confident you are that I will flip this coin. But on the material analysis, it will. On the material analysis, you should get more confident that the conditional is true as you get less confident that I will flip the coin. (How many agree with Edgington that it is right to have 50% confidence in the conditional? Does anyone think one should just say it s false? Edgington says: if someone is told the probability is 0 that if you toss it it will land heads, he will think it is a doubletailed or otherwise peculiar coin. ) Edgington proposes the following principle [1, p. 34]: If A entails B, it is irrational to be more confident of A than of B. Her argument against the validity of the ortoif inference is that it is perfectly rational to be more confident of A B than of if A,B. This case against the truthfunctional account cannot be made in tersm of beliefs of which one is certain. Someone who is 100 percent certain that the Labour Party won t win has (on my account of the matter) no obvious use for an indicative conditional beginning If they win. But someone who is, say, 90 percent certain that they won t win can have beliefs about what will be the case if they do. The truthfunctional account has the immensely implausible consequence that such a person, if rational, is at least 90 per cent certain of any conditional with that antecedent. [1, p. 34] She makes a similar argument against the claim that B entails if A,B: 1. The Democrats will win (D). Yes April 27,
3 2.3 Rejection 2. Either it will be sunny tomorrow or the Democrats will win. (S D) Yes 3. If the economy falls into recession in August, the Democrats will win. (if R, D) No Try drawing your allocation of credence to D, R, D, and R. The more credence you give, the bigger the area. 2.3 Rejection Material conditional account says that rejecting a conditional requires accepting that its antecedent is true. This seems crazy, and can t be explained by Gricean means. 2.4 Bizarre validities Edgington points out that the material implication account gives bizarre predictions about the validity of inferences: William Hart s new proof of the existence of God [1, p. 37]: 1. If God does not exist, then it is not the case that if I pray my prayers will be answered. (if G, if P,A) 2. I do not pray. ( P) 3. Therefore (by the material conditional analysis), it is the case that if I pray my prayers will be answered. (if P,A) 4. So (modus tollens) God exists. (G) Also, the material conditional analysis predicts that this is a tautology: (if A,B) (if A,B) But intuitively it seems possible to reject both disjuncts. If I go to the store, I will see Jack. 3 Edgington s positive view Edgington proposes that indicative conditionals don t have any truth conditions at all. Conditionals not part of factstating discourse. Instead of explaining their meanings by saying under what conditions they are true, she proposes to say what mental states they express. When we judge that if A, B, she says, we are not judging that some proposition, that if A, B, is true. We are, rather, judging that B under the supposition that A. Similarly, when we judge it 60% likely that if A, B, we are not judging that some proposition (whose truth conditions we might try to articulate) is 60% likely to be true. Rather, we are judging that B is 60% likely to be true, under the supposition that A. In more detail, she holds [1, p. 38]: April 27,
4 4. Argument that a truthconditional account should be truthfunctional Conditional Likelihood: X believes that (judges it likely that) if A, B to the extent that he judges that A&B is nearly as likely as A, or, roughly, equivalently, to the extent that he judges A&B to be more likely than A& B. If you re happy with numerical assignments of credence, then this amounts to [1, p. 39]: A person s degree of confidence in a conditional, if A, B, is the conditional probability he assigns to B given A. Standardly the conditional probability of B given A is defined using the ratio: conditional probability Pr(A B) Pr(B A) = Pr(A) David Lewis [2] showed that there s no way to assign truth conditions to sentences of the form if A,B that will validate the Equation: Pr(if A, B) = Pr(B A) (Of course, his proof uses some assumptions, which you might reject.) So if Edgington is right that the degree to which you should believe if A,B is your subjective probability of A given B, then Lewis s triviality proof is an argument for the notruthconditions view. But Edgington doesn t want to assume precise values, so she doesn t rely on this. Instead she relies on intuitive cases like the coin case (discussed above), and the following argument. 4 Argument that a truthconditional account should be truthfunctional On Edgington s view, there is no way to assign truth conditions to an indicative conditional: there is no proposition such that asserting it to be the case is equivalent to asserting that B is the case given the supposition that A is the case [1, p. 30]. We ve seen why she rejects the material conditional account, which is the only plausible truthfunctional account of the conditional. So now we need to see why she thinks that no nontruthfunctional (e.g. modal) truth conditions for the conditional can be given. She does this by arguing that if indicative conditionals have truth conditions, then they must be truthfunctional: I shall now show that wherever truthfunctionality is assumed to fail, there are consequences incompatible with the positive thesis about the acceptance of a conditional. [1, 42ff]. Since she has already argued against truthfunctional accounts, this gives her a general argument against truthconditional accounts. The main premise of her argument is the Conditional Likelihood principle stated above. The argument takes the form of a tetralemma. Suppose truthfunctionality fails. Then we must have at least one of the following cases for if A,B. April 27,
5 4. Argument that a truthconditional account should be truthfunctional 1. if T, F can be either T or F. 2. if T, T can be either T or F. 3. if F, T can be either T or F. 4. if F, F can be either T or F. Case 1 can be easily eliminated, since we take if A,B to entail A B. That leaves three interesting possibilities. Edgington is going to argue that none of them is possible. That will show that truth functionality can t fail. Case 2 If this case can obtain, C 1. Someone may be sure that A is true and sure that B is true, yet not have enough information to decide whether If A, B is true; one may consistently be agnostic about the conditional while being sure that its components are true (as for A before B ). However [1, p. 44]: C 1 is incompatible with our positive account. Being certain that A and that B, a person must think A&B is just as likely as A. He is certain that B on the assumption that A is true. So this possibility must be rejected. Establishing that the antecedent and consequent are true is surely one incontrovertible way of verifying a conditional [1, p. 44]. Think about whether anyone who accepts truth conditions for if that sometimes make a conditional with true antecedent and consequent true, and sometimes false, must accept C1. Would it be possible to give an account on which certainty that the antecedent and consequent were true would suffice for certainty in the conditional, but the mere truth of the antecedent and consequent would not suffice for the truth of the conditional? Case 3 Now suppose someone is sure that B but is uncertain whether A. On our positive account, he knows enough to be sure that if A, B: If B is certain, A&B is just as probable as A. This also accords with common sense. [1, p. 45] Case 4 Now consider someone who is sure that A and B have the same truth value, but is uncertain which. For example he knows that John and Mary spent yesterday evening together, but doesn t know whether they went to the party. According to our positive account and according to common sense, he knows enough to be sure that if John went to the party, Mary did. (J&M is as likely as J... [1, p. 45] April 27,
6 5. Edgington on the ortoif inference REFERENCES Conclusion If conditionals have truth conditions, they are truth functional. But they are not truth functional. So they don t have truth conditions. The mistake is to think of conditionals as part of factstating discourse. Further upshot: the criterion for the validity of deductive arguments needs to be restated in the light of this thesis. Not truth preservation, since conditional sentences do not have truth conditions. Something to do with high subjective probability (Adams). 5 Edgington on the ortoif inference In most normal cases where we assert A or B, Edgington shows, the ortoif inference is reliable, in the sense that if we have high credence in the premises, we should have high credence in the conclusion. These are cases where we have intermediate credence in both A and B, and we do not accept the disjunction on the basis of one of the disjuncts alone. If I am agnostic about A, and agnostic about B, but confident that A or B, I must believe that if nota, B. (See figure on p. 40.) However, in cases where we accept the disjunction only because we think one of the disjuncts is very likely, the ortoif inference breaks down. Her example: (2) It is either 8 o clock or 11 o clock. Suppose you re 90% confident that it s 8 o clock, but you think there s a small chance your clock is broken. Since you re 90% confident that it s 8 o clock, you should be 90% confident that it s either 8 o clock or 11 o clock. But in this case the ortoif inference fails. You don t accept the conditional (3) If it is not 8 o clock, it is 11 o clock. For, if it is not 8 o clock, it could many different times. (See figure on p. 41.) Edgington has explained why the ortoif inference seems so intuitively compelling, and shown why it is nonetheless not valid. References [1] Dorothy Edgington. Do Conditionals Have TruthConditions. In: A Philosophical Companion to FirstOrder Logic. Ed. by R. I. G. Hughes. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993, pp [2] David Lewis. Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities. In: Philosophical Review 85 (1976), pp April 27,
In Defense of The WideScope Instrumental Principle. Simon Rippon
In Defense of The WideScope Instrumental Principle Simon Rippon Suppose that people always have reason to take the means to the ends that they intend. 1 Then it would appear that people s intentions to
More informationExercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014
Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional
More informationConditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid?
Conditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 The intuitive counterexamples McGee [2] offers these intuitive counterexamples to Modus Ponens: 1. (a)
More informationBasic Concepts and Skills!
Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential
More informationA Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i. (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London. and. Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel
A Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London and Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel Abstract: We present a puzzle about knowledge, probability
More informationSemantic Entailment and Natural Deduction
Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment.
More informationThere are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds
More informationThis is an electronic version of a paper Journal of Philosophical Logic 43: , 2014.
This is an electronic version of a paper Journal of Philosophical Logic 43: 979997, 2014. The following passage occurs on p.994 of the published version: The invalidity of Antecedent Strengthening cannot
More informationEntailment, with nods to Lewy and Smiley
Entailment, with nods to Lewy and Smiley Peter Smith November 20, 2009 Last week, we talked a bit about the AndersonBelnap logic of entailment, as discussed in Priest s Introduction to NonClassical Logic.
More informationAn Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori. Ralph Wedgwood
An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori Ralph Wedgwood When philosophers explain the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori, they usually characterize the a priori negatively, as involving
More informationJustified Inference. Ralph Wedgwood
Justified Inference Ralph Wedgwood In this essay, I shall propose a general conception of the kind of inference that counts as justified or rational. This conception involves a version of the idea that
More informationConditionals, Predicates and Probability
Conditionals, Predicates and Probability Abstract Ernest Adams has claimed that a probabilistic account of validity gives the best account of our intuitive judgements about the validity of arguments. In
More informationChapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism
Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning................... 3 1.1.1 Strong Syllogism......................... 3 1.1.2 Weak Syllogism.......................... 4 1.1.3 Transitivity
More informationHow Gödelian Ontological Arguments Fail
How Gödelian Ontological Arguments Fail Matthew W. Parker Abstract. Ontological arguments like those of Gödel (1995) and Pruss (2009; 2012) rely on premises that initially seem plausible, but on closer
More informationThe Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism
The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.
More informationHANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13
1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the
More informationPHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy
PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 9 th, 2015 All About Arguments (Part II) 1 A common theme linking many fallacies is that they make unwarranted assumptions. An assumption is a claim
More informationTWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW
DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY
More informationPhilosophical Perspectives, 16, Language and Mind, 2002 THE AIM OF BELIEF 1. Ralph Wedgwood Merton College, Oxford
Philosophical Perspectives, 16, Language and Mind, 2002 THE AIM OF BELIEF 1 Ralph Wedgwood Merton College, Oxford 0. Introduction It is often claimed that beliefs aim at the truth. Indeed, this claim has
More informationPhilosophical Arguments
Philosophical Arguments An introduction to logic and philosophical reasoning. Nathan D. Smith, PhD. Houston Community College Nathan D. Smith. Some rights reserved You are free to copy this book, to distribute
More informationSelections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5
Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations
More informationDivine omniscience, timelessness, and the power to do otherwise
Religious Studies 42, 123 139 f 2006 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/s0034412506008250 Printed in the United Kingdom Divine omniscience, timelessness, and the power to do otherwise HUGH RICE Christ
More informationCan A Priori Justified Belief Be Extended Through Deduction? It is often assumed that if one deduces some proposition p from some premises
Can A Priori Justified Belief Be Extended Through Deduction? Introduction It is often assumed that if one deduces some proposition p from some premises which one knows a priori, in a series of individually
More informationBennett s Ch 7: Indicative Conditionals Lack Truth Values Jennifer Zale, 10/12/04
Bennett s Ch 7: Indicative Conditionals Lack Truth Values Jennifer Zale, 10/12/04 38. No Truth Value (NTV) I. Main idea of NTV: Indicative conditionals have no truth conditions and no truth value. They
More informationUC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016
Logical Consequence UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Intuitive characterizations of consequence Modal: It is necessary (or apriori) that, if the premises are true, the conclusion
More informationExternalism and a priori knowledge of the world: Why privileged access is not the issue Maria LasonenAarnio
Externalism and a priori knowledge of the world: Why privileged access is not the issue Maria LasonenAarnio This is the prepeer reviewed version of the following article: LasonenAarnio, M. (2006), Externalism
More informationCONDITIONAL PROPOSITIONS AND CONDITIONAL ASSERTIONS
CONDITIONAL PROPOSITIONS AND CONDITIONAL ASSERTIONS Robert Stalnaker One standard way of approaching the problem of analyzing conditional sentences begins with the assumption that a sentence of this kind
More informationComments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions
Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions Christopher Menzel Texas A&M University March 16, 2008 Since Arthur Prior first made us aware of the issue, a lot of philosophical thought has gone into
More informationThe distinction between truthfunctional and nontruthfunctional logical and linguistic
FORMAL CRITERIA OF NONTRUTHFUNCTIONALITY Dale Jacquette The Pennsylvania State University 1. TruthFunctional Meaning The distinction between truthfunctional and nontruthfunctional logical and linguistic
More informationHANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
More informationThe University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethics.
Reply to Southwood, Kearns and Star, and Cullity Author(s): by John Broome Source: Ethics, Vol. 119, No. 1 (October 2008), pp. 96108 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/592584.
More informationMCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness
MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of .
More informationPhilosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity
Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider
More informationFree Acts and Chance: Why the Rollback Argument Fails Lara Buchak, UC Berkeley
1 Free Acts and Chance: Why the Rollback Argument Fails Lara Buchak, UC Berkeley ABSTRACT: The rollback argument, pioneered by Peter van Inwagen, purports to show that indeterminism in any form is incompatible
More informationKNOWING AGAINST THE ODDS
KNOWING AGAINST THE ODDS Cian Dorr, Jeremy Goodman, and John Hawthorne 1 Here is a compelling principle concerning our knowledge of coin flips: FAIR COINS: If you know that a coin is fair, and for all
More informationAbominable KK Failures
Abominable KK Failures Kevin Dorst Massachussetts Institute of Technology kmdorst@mit.edu Forthcoming in Mind Abstract KK is the thesis that if you can know p, you can know that you can know p. Though
More informationRevisiting the Socrates Example
Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified
More informationVerificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011
Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability
More informationLuck, Rationality, and Explanation: A Reply to Elga s Lucky to Be Rational. Joshua Schechter. Brown University
Luck, Rationality, and Explanation: A Reply to Elga s Lucky to Be Rational Joshua Schechter Brown University I Introduction What is the epistemic significance of discovering that one of your beliefs depends
More informationAyer on the criterion of verifiability
Ayer on the criterion of verifiability November 19, 2004 1 The critique of metaphysics............................. 1 2 Observation statements............................... 2 3 In principle verifiability...............................
More informationStudy Guides. Chapter 1  Basic Training
Study Guides Chapter 1  Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)
More information9 Methods of Deduction
M09_COPI1396_13_SE_C09.QXD 10/19/07 3:46 AM Page 372 9 Methods of Deduction 9.1 Formal Proof of Validity 9.2 The Elementary Valid Argument Forms 9.3 Formal Proofs of Validity Exhibited 9.4 Constructing
More informationLogic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic
Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,
More informationAquinas' Third Way Modalized
Philosophy of Religion Aquinas' Third Way Modalized Robert E. Maydole Davidson College bomaydole@davidson.edu ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for
More information4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity
4. Proofs 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity Given that we can test an argument for validity, it might seem that we have a fully developed system to study arguments. However, there
More informationPhilosophy Epistemology. Topic 3  Skepticism
Michael Huemer on Skepticism Philosophy 3340  Epistemology Topic 3  Skepticism Chapter II. The Lure of Radical Skepticism 1. Mike Huemer defines radical skepticism as follows: Philosophical skeptics
More informationCHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument
CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those
More informationA solution to the problem of hijacked experience
A solution to the problem of hijacked experience Jill is not sure what Jack s current mood is, but she fears that he is angry with her. Then Jack steps into the room. Jill gets a good look at his face.
More informationLawrence Brian Lombard a a Wayne State University. To link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [Wayne State University] On: 29 August 2011, At: 05:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
More informationInference and Evidence 1
Inference and Evidence 1 1. The Two Bases of Rationality We have a variety of attitudes to the truth of propositions: believing that p is true, hoping that p be true, desiring that p become true, assuming,
More informationArtificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture  03 So in the last
More informationLogic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 2012 CONTENTS Part I Critical Thinking Chapter 1 Basic Training 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Logic, Propositions and Arguments 1.3 Deduction and Induction
More informationBoghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori
Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in
More informationPHIL 115: Philosophical Anthropology. I. Propositional Forms (in Stoic Logic) Lecture #4: Stoic Logic
HIL 115: hilosophical Anthropology Lecture #4: Stoic Logic Arguments from the Euthyphro: Meletus Argument (according to Socrates) [3ab] Argument: Socrates is a maker of gods; so, Socrates corrupts the
More informationDeontic Logic. G. H. von Wright. Mind, New Series, Vol. 60, No (Jan., 1951), pp
Deontic Logic G. H. von Wright Mind, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 237. (Jan., 1951), pp. 115. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00264423%28195101%292%3a60%3a237%3c1%3adl%3e2.0.co%3b2c Mind is
More informationIntroducing Our New Faculty
Dr. Isidoro Talavera Franklin University, Philosophy Ph.D. in Philosophy  Vanderbilt University M.A. in Philosophy  Vanderbilt University M.A. in Philosophy  University of Missouri M.S.E. in Math Education
More informationT. Parent. I shall explain these steps in turn. Let s consider the following passage to illustrate the process:
Reconstructing Arguments Argument reconstruction is where we take a written argument, and rewrite it to make the logic of the argument as obvious as possible. I have broken down this task into six steps:
More informationCounterfactual Skepticism and. Multidimensional Semantics
Counterfactual Skepticism and Multidimensional Semantics H. Orri Stefánsson www.orristefansson.is June 9, 2017 Abstract It has recently been argued that indeterminacy and indeterminism make most ordinary
More informationA Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic
A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic Sungwoo Park Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea Estonian Theory Days Jan 30, 2009 Outline Study of logic Model theory vs Proof theory Classical
More informationParadox of Deniability
1 Paradox of Deniability Massimiliano Carrara FISPPA Department, University of Padua, Italy Peking University, Beijing  6 November 2018 Introduction. The starting elements Suppose two speakers disagree
More informationFREE ACTS AND CHANCE: WHY THE ROLLBACK ARGUMENT FAILS
The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 63, No. 250 January 2013 ISSN 00318094 doi: 10.1111/j.14679213.2012.00094.x FREE ACTS AND CHANCE: WHY THE ROLLBACK ARGUMENT FAILS BY LARA BUCHAK The rollback argument,
More informationKeywords precise, imprecise, sharp, mushy, credence, subjective, probability, reflection, Bayesian, epistemology
Coin flips, credences, and the Reflection Principle * BRETT TOPEY Abstract One recent topic of debate in Bayesian epistemology has been the question of whether imprecise credences can be rational. I argue
More informationINTUITION AND CONSCIOUS REASONING
The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 63, No. 253 October 2013 ISSN 00318094 doi: 10.1111/14679213.12071 INTUITION AND CONSCIOUS REASONING BY OLE KOKSVIK This paper argues that, contrary to common opinion,
More informationHume. Hume the Empiricist. Judgments about the World. Impressions as Content of the Mind. The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World
Hume Hume the Empiricist The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World As an empiricist, Hume thinks that all knowledge of the world comes from sense experience If all we can know comes from
More informationAn alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics
An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truththeoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.
More informationFoundationalism Vs. Skepticism: The Greater Philosophical Ideology
1. Introduction Ryan C. Smith Philosophy 125W Final Paper April 24, 2010 Foundationalism Vs. Skepticism: The Greater Philosophical Ideology Throughout this paper, the goal will be to accomplish three
More informationThe Greatest Mistake: A Case for the Failure of Hegel s Idealism
The Greatest Mistake: A Case for the Failure of Hegel s Idealism What is a great mistake? Nietzsche once said that a great error is worth more than a multitude of trivial truths. A truly great mistake
More informationIn Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006
In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
More informationDenying the antecedent and conditional perfection again
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM  May 25th, 5:00 PM Denying the antecedent and conditional perfection again Andrei Moldovan University of
More informationWhat is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?
What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.
More informationLecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman
Lecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman 2 Is this a valid argument? Assumptions: If the races are fixed or the gambling houses are crooked, then the tourist trade will decline. If the tourist trade declines
More informationA Priori Bootstrapping
A Priori Bootstrapping Ralph Wedgwood In this essay, I shall explore the problems that are raised by a certain traditional sceptical paradox. My conclusion, at the end of this essay, will be that the most
More informationAnnouncements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into FirstOrder Logic
Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete
More informationThe Skeptic and the Dogmatist
NOÛS 34:4 ~2000! 517 549 The Skeptic and the Dogmatist James Pryor Harvard University I Consider the skeptic about the external world. Let s straightaway concede to such a skeptic that perception gives
More informationForeknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments
Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 1 Warfield s argument for compatibilism................................ 1 2 Why the argument fails to show that free will and
More informationVagueness and supervaluations
Vagueness and supervaluations UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Supervaluations We saw two problems with the threevalued approach: 1. sharp boundaries 2. counterintuitive consequences
More informationThe normativity of content and the Frege point
The normativity of content and the Frege point Jeff Speaks March 26, 2008 In Assertion, Peter Geach wrote: A thought may have just the same content whether you assent to its truth or not; a proposition
More informationVarieties of Apriority
S E V E N T H E X C U R S U S Varieties of Apriority T he notions of a priori knowledge and justification play a central role in this work. There are many ways in which one can understand the a priori,
More informationInstrumental reasoning* John Broome
Instrumental reasoning* John Broome For: Rationality, Rules and Structure, edited by Julian NidaRümelin and Wolfgang Spohn, Kluwer. * This paper was written while I was a visiting fellow at the Swedish
More informationThe Paradox of Knowability and Semantic AntiRealism
The Paradox of Knowability and Semantic AntiRealism Julianne Chung B.A. Honours Thesis Supervisor: Richard Zach Department of Philosophy University of Calgary 2007 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY This copy is to
More informationLecture Notes on Classical Logic
Lecture Notes on Classical Logic 15317: Constructive Logic William Lovas Lecture 7 September 15, 2009 1 Introduction In this lecture, we design a judgmental formulation of classical logic To gain an intuition,
More informationThe Logic of Confusion. Remarks on Joseph Camp s Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge. John MacFarlane (University of California, Berkeley)
The Logic of Confusion Remarks on Joseph Camp s Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge John MacFarlane (University of California, Berkeley) Because I am color blind, I routinely wear mismatched
More informationModule 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur
Module 5 Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Lesson 12 Propositional Logic inference rules 5.5 Rules of Inference Here are some examples of sound rules of inference. Each can be shown
More informationTime by J. M. E. McTaggart. Chapter 33 of The Nature of Existence
Time by J. M. E. McTaggart Chapter 33 of The Nature of Existence McTaggart s Destructive Argument Thesis: Time is unreal. Outline (P1) There is no time without change. (P2) There is no change without an
More informationTHE CASE OF THE MINERS
DISCUSSION NOTE BY VUKO ANDRIĆ JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE JANUARY 2013 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT VUKO ANDRIĆ 2013 The Case of the Miners T HE MINERS CASE HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD
More informationEvidential Support and Instrumental Rationality
Evidential Support and Instrumental Rationality Peter Brössel, AnnaMaria A. Eder, and Franz Huber Formal Epistemology Research Group Zukunftskolleg and Department of Philosophy University of Konstanz
More informationTHE FREGEGEACH PROBLEM AND KALDERON S MORAL FICTIONALISM. Matti Eklund Cornell University
THE FREGEGEACH PROBLEM AND KALDERON S MORAL FICTIONALISM Matti Eklund Cornell University [me72@cornell.edu] Penultimate draft. Final version forthcoming in Philosophical Quarterly I. INTRODUCTION In his
More informationTHE SEMANTIC REALISM OF STROUD S RESPONSE TO AUSTIN S ARGUMENT AGAINST SCEPTICISM
SKÉPSIS, ISSN 19814194, ANO VII, Nº 14, 2016, p. 3339. THE SEMANTIC REALISM OF STROUD S RESPONSE TO AUSTIN S ARGUMENT AGAINST SCEPTICISM ALEXANDRE N. MACHADO Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) Email:
More informationLecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments
Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.
More informationILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS
ILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS 1. ACTS OF USING LANGUAGE Illocutionary logic is the logic of speech acts, or language acts. Systems of illocutionary logic have both an ontological,
More informationPhilosophy 220. Truth Functional Properties Expressed in terms of Consistency
Philosophy 220 Truth Functional Properties Expressed in terms of Consistency The concepts of truthfunctional logic: Truthfunctional: Truth Falsity Indeterminacy Entailment Validity Equivalence Consistency
More informationDEFENDING KLEIN ON CLOSURE AND SKEPTICISM
E. J. COFFMAN DEFENDING KLEIN ON CLOSURE AND SKEPTICISM ABSTRACT. In this paper, I consider some issues involving a certain closure principle for Structural Justification, a relation between a cognitive
More informationChalmers s Frontloading Argument for A Priori Scrutability
book symposium 651 Burge, T. 1986. Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. Journal of Philosophy 83: 697 720. Burge, T. 1989. Wherein is language social? In Reflections on Chomsky, ed. A. George, Oxford:
More informationNecessity and Truth Makers
JAN WOLEŃSKI Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego ul. Gołębia 24 31007 Kraków Poland Email: jan.wolenski@uj.edu.pl Web: http://www.filozofia.uj.edu.pl/janwolenski Keywords: Barry Smith, logic,
More informationOverview of Today s Lecture
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,
More informationA Model of Decidable Introspective Reasoning with QuantifyingIn
A Model of Decidable Introspective Reasoning with QuantifyingIn Gerhard Lakemeyer* Institut fur Informatik III Universitat Bonn Romerstr. 164 W5300 Bonn 1, Germany email: gerhard@uran.informatik.unibonn,de
More informationPhilosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism. Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument
1. The Scope of Skepticism Philosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument The scope of skeptical challenges can vary in a number
More informationSupplementary Section 6S.7
Supplementary Section 6S.7 The Propositions of Propositional Logic The central concern in Introduction to Formal Logic with Philosophical Applications is logical consequence: What follows from what? Relatedly,
More informationSession 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)
UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:
More informationAyer s linguistic theory of the a priori
Ayer s linguistic theory of the a priori phil 43904 Jeff Speaks December 4, 2007 1 The problem of a priori knowledge....................... 1 2 Necessity and the a priori............................ 2
More information