Reflecting on believability: on the epistemic approach to justifying implicit commitments

IF 1.1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1007/s11098-024-02215-6
Maciej Głowacki, Mateusz Łełyk
{"title":"Reflecting on believability: on the epistemic approach to justifying implicit commitments","authors":"Maciej Głowacki, Mateusz Łełyk","doi":"10.1007/s11098-024-02215-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>By definition, the implicit commitment of a formal theory <span>\\(\\textrm{Th}\\)</span> consists of sentences that are independent of the axioms of <span>\\(\\textrm{Th}\\)</span>, but their acceptance is implicit in the acceptance of <span>\\(\\textrm{Th}\\)</span>. In Cieśliński (2017, 2018), the phenomenon of implicit commitments was studied from the epistemological perspective through the lenses of the formal theory of believability. The current paper provides a comprehensive proof-theoretic analysis of this approach and compares it to other main theories of implicit commitments. We argue that the formal results presented in the paper favour the believability theory over its main competitors. However, there is still a fly in the ointment. We argue that in its current formulation, the theory cannot deliver all the goods for which it was defined. In particular, being amenable to a generalised conservativeness argument, it does not support the view that the notion of truth is epistemically light. At the end of the paper, we discuss possible ways out of the problem.</p>","PeriodicalId":48305,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-024-02215-6","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

By definition, the implicit commitment of a formal theory \(\textrm{Th}\) consists of sentences that are independent of the axioms of \(\textrm{Th}\), but their acceptance is implicit in the acceptance of \(\textrm{Th}\). In Cieśliński (2017, 2018), the phenomenon of implicit commitments was studied from the epistemological perspective through the lenses of the formal theory of believability. The current paper provides a comprehensive proof-theoretic analysis of this approach and compares it to other main theories of implicit commitments. We argue that the formal results presented in the paper favour the believability theory over its main competitors. However, there is still a fly in the ointment. We argue that in its current formulation, the theory cannot deliver all the goods for which it was defined. In particular, being amenable to a generalised conservativeness argument, it does not support the view that the notion of truth is epistemically light. At the end of the paper, we discuss possible ways out of the problem.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反思可信性:从认识论角度论证隐含承诺的合理性
根据定义,形式理论的隐含承诺由一些句子组成,这些句子独立于形式理论的公理,但对它们的接受隐含在对形式理论的接受之中。在 Cieśliński(2017,2018)一文中,通过可信性形式理论的视角,从认识论的角度对隐含承诺现象进行了研究。本文对这一方法进行了全面的证明论分析,并将其与其他主要的隐性承诺理论进行了比较。我们认为,本文提出的形式结果有利于可信性理论,而不是其主要竞争对手。然而,我们也发现了一些问题。我们认为,在目前的表述中,该理论无法实现其定义的所有目标。特别是,该理论虽然适合于广义的保守性论证,但它并不支持真理概念在认识论上是轻飘飘的这一观点。在本文的最后,我们讨论了解决这一问题的可能途径。
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 去求助
来源期刊
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Philosophical Studies was founded in 1950 by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars to provide a periodical dedicated to work in analytic philosophy. The journal remains devoted to the publication of papers in exclusively analytic philosophy. Papers applying formal techniques to philosophical problems are welcome. The principal aim is to publish articles that are models of clarity and precision in dealing with significant philosophical issues. It is intended that readers of the journal will be kept abreast of the central issues and problems of contemporary analytic philosophy. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.
期刊最新文献
Incommensurability and democratic deliberation in bioethics What Is Rational Sentimentalism? Metaphor and ambiguity Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment What is reasonable doubt? For philosophical studies special issue on Sosa’s ‘epistemic explanations’
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1