认识现代的一些形式语义学

IF 0.6 Q2 LOGIC Logic and Logical Philosophy Pub Date : 2020-02-08 DOI:10.12775/llp.2020.002
Christopher Steinsvold
{"title":"认识现代的一些形式语义学","authors":"Christopher Steinsvold","doi":"10.12775/llp.2020.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the frequency of human error, it seems rational to believe that some of our own rational beliefs are false. This is the axiom of epistemic modesty. Unfortunately, using standard propositional quantification, and the usual relational semantics, this axiom is semantically inconsistent with a common logic for rational belief, namely KD45. Here we explore two alternative semantics for KD45 and the axiom of epistemic modesty. The first uses the usual relational semantics and bisimulation quantifiers. The second uses a topological semantics and standard propositional quantification. We show the two different semantics validate many of the same formulas, though we do not know whether they validate exactly the same formulas. Along the way we address various philosophical concerns.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":"29 1","pages":"381-413"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Formal Semantics for Epistemic Modesty\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Steinsvold\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/llp.2020.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given the frequency of human error, it seems rational to believe that some of our own rational beliefs are false. This is the axiom of epistemic modesty. Unfortunately, using standard propositional quantification, and the usual relational semantics, this axiom is semantically inconsistent with a common logic for rational belief, namely KD45. Here we explore two alternative semantics for KD45 and the axiom of epistemic modesty. The first uses the usual relational semantics and bisimulation quantifiers. The second uses a topological semantics and standard propositional quantification. We show the two different semantics validate many of the same formulas, though we do not know whether they validate exactly the same formulas. Along the way we address various philosophical concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logic and Logical Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"381-413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logic and Logical Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2020.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LOGIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2020.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

考虑到人为错误的频率,相信我们自己的一些理性信念是错误的似乎是合理的。这就是认识谦逊的公理。不幸的是,使用标准命题量化和通常的关系语义,这个公理在语义上与理性信念的常见逻辑,即KD45不一致。在这里,我们探讨了KD45和认识谦虚公理的两种可选语义。第一个使用通常的关系语义和互模拟量词。第二个使用拓扑语义和标准命题量化。我们展示了两种不同的语义验证了许多相同的公式,尽管我们不知道它们是否验证了完全相同的公式。在此过程中,我们讨论了各种哲学问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Some Formal Semantics for Epistemic Modesty
Given the frequency of human error, it seems rational to believe that some of our own rational beliefs are false. This is the axiom of epistemic modesty. Unfortunately, using standard propositional quantification, and the usual relational semantics, this axiom is semantically inconsistent with a common logic for rational belief, namely KD45. Here we explore two alternative semantics for KD45 and the axiom of epistemic modesty. The first uses the usual relational semantics and bisimulation quantifiers. The second uses a topological semantics and standard propositional quantification. We show the two different semantics validate many of the same formulas, though we do not know whether they validate exactly the same formulas. Along the way we address various philosophical concerns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Paradoxes versus Contradictions in Logic of Sentential Operators Constructive Logic is Connexive and Contradictory KD45 with Propositional Quantifiers Logical Forms, Substitutions and Information Types Logical Forms: Validity and Variety of Formalizations
×
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