Difference-Making Conditionals and Connexivity

IF 0.6 3区 数学 Q2 LOGIC
Hans Rott
{"title":"Difference-Making Conditionals and Connexivity","authors":"Hans Rott","doi":"10.1007/s11225-023-10071-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Today there is a wealth of fascinating studies of connexive logical systems. But sometimes it looks as if connexive logic is still in search of a convincing interpretation that explains in intuitive terms why the connexive principles should be valid. In this paper I argue that difference-making conditionals as presented in Rott ( Review of Symbolic Logic 15, 2022) offer one principled way of interpreting connexive principles. From a philosophical point of view, the idea of difference-making demands full, unrestricted connexivity, because neither logical truths nor contradictions or other absurdities can ever ‘make a difference’ (i.e., be relevantly connected) to anything. However, difference-making conditionals have so far been only partially connexive. I show how the existing analysis of difference-making conditionals can be reshaped to obtain full connexivity. The classical AGM belief revision model is replaced by a conceivability-limited revision model that serves as the semantic base for the analysis. The key point of the latter is that the agent should never accept any absurdities.","PeriodicalId":48979,"journal":{"name":"Studia Logica","volume":"145 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Logica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-023-10071-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Today there is a wealth of fascinating studies of connexive logical systems. But sometimes it looks as if connexive logic is still in search of a convincing interpretation that explains in intuitive terms why the connexive principles should be valid. In this paper I argue that difference-making conditionals as presented in Rott ( Review of Symbolic Logic 15, 2022) offer one principled way of interpreting connexive principles. From a philosophical point of view, the idea of difference-making demands full, unrestricted connexivity, because neither logical truths nor contradictions or other absurdities can ever ‘make a difference’ (i.e., be relevantly connected) to anything. However, difference-making conditionals have so far been only partially connexive. I show how the existing analysis of difference-making conditionals can be reshaped to obtain full connexivity. The classical AGM belief revision model is replaced by a conceivability-limited revision model that serves as the semantic base for the analysis. The key point of the latter is that the agent should never accept any absurdities.
差异条件和连接
摘要:目前,有大量关于关联逻辑系统的研究。但有时看起来,似乎连接逻辑仍在寻找一种令人信服的解释,以直观的方式解释为什么连接原则应该是有效的。在本文中,我认为Rott (Review of Symbolic Logic 15,2022)中提出的差异制造条件提供了解释连接原则的一种原则性方法。从哲学的角度来看,差异产生的想法要求充分的、不受限制的连接,因为逻辑真理、矛盾或其他荒谬都不能“产生差异”(即与任何事物相关)。然而,到目前为止,造成差异的条件句只是部分连接。我将展示如何对产生差异的条件的现有分析进行重塑,以获得完全的连接性。将经典的AGM信念修正模型替换为可想象限制修正模型,作为分析的语义基础。后者的关键是代理人不应该接受任何荒谬。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studia Logica
Studia Logica MATHEMATICS-LOGIC
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The leading idea of Lvov-Warsaw School of Logic, Philosophy and Mathematics was to investigate philosophical problems by means of rigorous methods of mathematics. Evidence of the great success the School experienced is the fact that it has become generally recognized as Polish Style Logic. Today Polish Style Logic is no longer exclusively a Polish speciality. It is represented by numerous logicians, mathematicians and philosophers from research centers all over the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信