The Orthologic of Epistemic Modals

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Wesley H. Holliday, Matthew Mandelkern
{"title":"The Orthologic of Epistemic Modals","authors":"Wesley H. Holliday, Matthew Mandelkern","doi":"10.1007/s10992-024-09746-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Epistemic modals have peculiar logical features that are challenging to account for in a broadly classical framework. For instance, while a sentence of the form <span>\\(p\\wedge \\Diamond \\lnot p\\)</span> (‘<i>p</i>, but it might be that not <i>p</i>’) appears to be a contradiction, <span>\\(\\Diamond \\lnot p\\)</span> does not entail <span>\\(\\lnot p\\)</span>, which would follow in classical logic. Likewise, the classical laws of distributivity and disjunctive syllogism fail for epistemic modals. Existing attempts to account for these facts generally either under- or over-correct. Some theories predict that <span>\\( p\\wedge \\Diamond \\lnot p\\)</span>, a so-called <i>epistemic contradiction</i>, is a contradiction only in an etiolated sense, under a notion of entailment that does not always allow us to replace <span>\\(p\\wedge \\Diamond \\lnot p\\)</span> with a contradiction; these theories underpredict the infelicity of embedded epistemic contradictions. Other theories savage classical logic, eliminating not just rules that intuitively fail, like distributivity and disjunctive syllogism, but also rules like non-contradiction, excluded middle, De Morgan’s laws, and disjunction introduction, which intuitively remain valid for epistemic modals. In this paper, we aim for a middle ground, developing a semantics and logic for epistemic modals that makes epistemic contradictions genuine contradictions and that invalidates distributivity and disjunctive syllogism but that otherwise preserves classical laws that intuitively remain valid. We start with an <i>algebraic semantics</i>, based on ortholattices instead of Boolean algebras, and then propose a <i>possibility semantics</i>, based on partial possibilities related by compatibility. Both semantics yield the same consequence relation, which we axiomatize. We then show how to lift an arbitrary possible worlds model for a non-modal language to a possibility model for a language with epistemic modals. The goal throughout is to retain what is desirable about classical logic while accounting for the non-classicality of epistemic vocabulary.</p>","PeriodicalId":51526,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-024-09746-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Epistemic modals have peculiar logical features that are challenging to account for in a broadly classical framework. For instance, while a sentence of the form \(p\wedge \Diamond \lnot p\) (‘p, but it might be that not p’) appears to be a contradiction, \(\Diamond \lnot p\) does not entail \(\lnot p\), which would follow in classical logic. Likewise, the classical laws of distributivity and disjunctive syllogism fail for epistemic modals. Existing attempts to account for these facts generally either under- or over-correct. Some theories predict that \( p\wedge \Diamond \lnot p\), a so-called epistemic contradiction, is a contradiction only in an etiolated sense, under a notion of entailment that does not always allow us to replace \(p\wedge \Diamond \lnot p\) with a contradiction; these theories underpredict the infelicity of embedded epistemic contradictions. Other theories savage classical logic, eliminating not just rules that intuitively fail, like distributivity and disjunctive syllogism, but also rules like non-contradiction, excluded middle, De Morgan’s laws, and disjunction introduction, which intuitively remain valid for epistemic modals. In this paper, we aim for a middle ground, developing a semantics and logic for epistemic modals that makes epistemic contradictions genuine contradictions and that invalidates distributivity and disjunctive syllogism but that otherwise preserves classical laws that intuitively remain valid. We start with an algebraic semantics, based on ortholattices instead of Boolean algebras, and then propose a possibility semantics, based on partial possibilities related by compatibility. Both semantics yield the same consequence relation, which we axiomatize. We then show how to lift an arbitrary possible worlds model for a non-modal language to a possibility model for a language with epistemic modals. The goal throughout is to retain what is desirable about classical logic while accounting for the non-classicality of epistemic vocabulary.

认识式的正字法
认识模态具有特殊的逻辑特征,在广义的经典框架内解释这些特征具有挑战性。例如,虽然形式为 \(p\wedge \Diamond \lnot p\) ('p, but it might be that not p')的句子似乎是一个矛盾,但 \(\Diamond \lnot p\) 并不蕴含 \(\lnot p\) ,这在经典逻辑中是成立的。同样,经典的分配律和分条件对立律也不适用于认识模态。现有的解释这些事实的尝试通常要么修正不足,要么修正过度。有些理论预言,所谓的认识论矛盾(epistemic contradiction),只有在 "entiolated "的意义上才是矛盾,而 "entailment "的概念并不总是允许我们用矛盾来替换"(p\wedge \Diamond \lnot p\)";这些理论低估了嵌入式认识论矛盾的不严密性。另一些理论则对经典逻辑进行了野蛮的摧残,不仅剔除了直观上失效的规则,如分配性和分离式三段论,还剔除了非矛盾、排除中间、德摩根定律和析取引入等直观上对认识模态仍然有效的规则。在本文中,我们的目标是找到一个中间地带,为认识模态建立一种语义和逻辑,使认识矛盾成为真正的矛盾,并使分配性和析取对立无效,但在其他方面保留了直观上仍然有效的经典法则。我们从代数语义入手,以正交格而非布尔代数为基础,然后提出了一种可能性语义,以相容性相关的部分可能性为基础。这两种语义都产生相同的结果关系,我们将其公理化。然后,我们展示了如何将非模态语言的任意可能世界模型提升为具有认识模态的语言的可能性模型。自始至终,我们的目标是保留经典逻辑的可取之处,同时考虑到认识论词汇的非经典性。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The Journal of Philosophical Logic aims to provide a forum for work at the crossroads of philosophy and logic, old and new, with contributions ranging from conceptual to technical.  Accordingly, the Journal invites papers in all of the traditional areas of philosophical logic, including but not limited to: various versions of modal, temporal, epistemic, and deontic logic; constructive logics; relevance and other sub-classical logics; many-valued logics; logics of conditionals; quantum logic; decision theory, inductive logic, logics of belief change, and formal epistemology; defeasible and nonmonotonic logics; formal philosophy of language; vagueness; and theories of truth and validity. In addition to publishing papers on philosophical logic in this familiar sense of the term, the Journal also invites papers on extensions of logic to new areas of application, and on the philosophical issues to which these give rise. The Journal places a special emphasis on the applications of philosophical logic in other disciplines, not only in mathematics and the natural sciences but also, for example, in computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, linguistics, jurisprudence, and the social sciences, such as economics, sociology, and political science.
×
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