Bilateralism, collapsing modalities, and the logic of assertion and denial

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
THEORIA Pub Date : 2024-03-17 DOI:10.1111/theo.12516
Nils Kürbis
{"title":"Bilateralism, collapsing modalities, and the logic of assertion and denial","authors":"Nils Kürbis","doi":"10.1111/theo.12516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rumfitt has given two arguments that in unilateralist verificationist theories of meaning, truth collapses into correct assertibility. In the present paper I give similar arguments that show that in unilateral falsificationist theories of meaning, falsehood collapses into correct deniability. According to bilateralism, meanings are determined by assertion and denial conditions, so the question arises whether it succumbs to similar arguments. I show that this is not the case. The final section considers the question whether a principle central to Rumfitt's first argument, ‘It is assertible that <mjx-container aria-label=\"upper A\" ctxtmenu_counter=\"0\" ctxtmenu_oldtabindex=\"1\" jax=\"CHTML\" role=\"application\" sre-explorer- style=\"font-size: 103%; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><mjx-math aria-hidden=\"true\"><mjx-semantics><mjx-mrow><mjx-mi data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic- data-semantic-role=\"latinletter\" data-semantic-speech=\"upper A\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\"><mjx-c></mjx-c></mjx-mi></mjx-mrow></mjx-semantics></mjx-math><mjx-assistive-mml aria-hidden=\"true\" display=\"inline\" unselectable=\"on\"><math altimg=\"/cms/asset/b9f1cf52-d732-424a-be82-cd61386f4221/theo12516-math-0001.png\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><semantics><mrow><mi data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic-role=\"latinletter\" data-semantic-speech=\"upper A\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\">A</mi></mrow>$$ A $$</annotation></semantics></math></mjx-assistive-mml></mjx-container> if and only if it is assertible that it is assertible that <mjx-container aria-label=\"upper A\" ctxtmenu_counter=\"1\" ctxtmenu_oldtabindex=\"1\" jax=\"CHTML\" role=\"application\" sre-explorer- style=\"font-size: 103%; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><mjx-math aria-hidden=\"true\"><mjx-semantics><mjx-mrow><mjx-mi data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic- data-semantic-role=\"latinletter\" data-semantic-speech=\"upper A\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\"><mjx-c></mjx-c></mjx-mi></mjx-mrow></mjx-semantics></mjx-math><mjx-assistive-mml aria-hidden=\"true\" display=\"inline\" unselectable=\"on\"><math altimg=\"/cms/asset/39fd4d93-311c-4f8c-b2e5-da8117ff21cf/theo12516-math-0002.png\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><semantics><mrow><mi data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic-role=\"latinletter\" data-semantic-speech=\"upper A\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\">A</mi></mrow>$$ A $$</annotation></semantics></math></mjx-assistive-mml></mjx-container>’, is one that bilateralists can reject, and concludes that they cannot. It follows that the logic of assertibility and deniability, according to a result by Williamson, is the little known modal logic K4 studied by Sobociński. The paper ends with a <i>plaidoyer</i> for bilateralists to adopt this logic.","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12516","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rumfitt has given two arguments that in unilateralist verificationist theories of meaning, truth collapses into correct assertibility. In the present paper I give similar arguments that show that in unilateral falsificationist theories of meaning, falsehood collapses into correct deniability. According to bilateralism, meanings are determined by assertion and denial conditions, so the question arises whether it succumbs to similar arguments. I show that this is not the case. The final section considers the question whether a principle central to Rumfitt's first argument, ‘It is assertible that if and only if it is assertible that it is assertible that ’, is one that bilateralists can reject, and concludes that they cannot. It follows that the logic of assertibility and deniability, according to a result by Williamson, is the little known modal logic K4 studied by Sobociński. The paper ends with a plaidoyer for bilateralists to adopt this logic.
双边主义、模式崩溃以及断言和否认的逻辑
拉姆菲特提出了两个论点,说明在单边主义的意义验证论中,真理会归结为正确的可断言性。在本文中,我给出了类似的论证,表明在单边意义证伪主义理论中,谬误会归结为正确的可否认性。根据双边主义,意义是由断言和否认条件决定的,因此问题在于它是否会屈从于类似的论证。我证明情况并非如此。最后一节探讨了一个问题,即朗菲特第一个论证的核心原则 "当且仅当可断言 A$$ A $$$是可断言的A$$ A $$$"是否是双边主义者可以拒绝的原则,结论是他们不能拒绝。由此可见,根据威廉姆森的一个结果,可断言性和可否认性逻辑就是索博辛斯基研究的鲜为人知的模态逻辑 K4。本文最后提出了双边主义者采用这一逻辑的建议。
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
THEORIA
THEORIA SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.
×
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