Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Paradox of Inference and the Non-Triviality of Analytic Information

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The classical theory of semantic information (ESI), as formulated by Bar-Hillel and Carnap in 1952, does not give a satisfactory account of the problem of what information, if any, analytically and/or logically true sentences have to offer. According to ESI, analytically true sentences lack informational content, and any two analytically equivalent sentences convey the same piece of information. This problem is connected with Cohen and Nagel’s paradox of inference: Since the conclusion of a valid argument is contained in the premises, it fails to provide any novel information. Again, ESI does not give a satisfactory account of the paradox. In this paper I propose a solution based on the distinction between empirical information and analytic information. Declarative sentences are informative due to their meanings. I construe meanings as structured hyperintensions, modelled in Transparent Intensional Logic as so-called constructions. These are abstract, algorithmically structured procedures whose constituents are sub-procedures. My main thesis is that constructions are the vehicles of information. Hence, although analytically true sentences provide no empirical information about the state of the world, they convey analytic information, in the shape of constructions prescribing how to arrive at the truths in question. Moreover, even though analytically equivalent sentences have equal empirical content, their analytic content may be different. Finally, though the empirical content of the conclusion of a valid argument is contained in the premises, its analytic content may be different from the analytic content of the premises and thus convey a new piece of information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abramsky, S. (2008). Information, processes and games. In P. Adriaans & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Philosophy of information: Handbook of the philosophy of science (pp. 483–550). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Allo, P. (2007). Logical pluralism and semantic information. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36, 659–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, C. A. (1998). Alonzo Church’s contributions to philosophy and intensional logic. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 4(2), 129–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bar-Hillel, Y., & Carnap, R. (1952). An outline of a theory of semantic information, rep. in Bar-Hillel (1964) (ed.), Language and Information (pp. 221–274). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

  5. Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre I, II. Sulzbach.

  6. Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and necessity. Chicago University Press.

  7. Church, A. (1941). The calculi of lambda conversion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Church, A. (1954). Intensional isomorphism and identity of belief. Philosophical Studies, 5, 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, M. R., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cook, S. A. (1971). The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: STOC ’71: Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (pp. 151–158). New York: ACM.

  11. Cresswell, M. J. (1985). Structured meanings. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duží, M. (1992). Semantic information connected with data. In J. Biskup & R. Hull (Eds.), Database theory ICDT’92 (pp. 376–390). Berlin: Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Duží, M. (2006). Informativnost matematických či analyticky pravdivých tvrzení a paradox inference’ (in Czech). Filosofický časopis, 54(4), 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duží, M. (2009). Topic-focus articulation from the semantic point of view, In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (pp. 220–232). Springer, LNCS 5449.

  15. Duží, M., & Materna, P. (2004). A procedural theory of concepts and the problem of the synthetic a priori. Korean Journal of Logic, 7, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Duží, M., & Materna, P. (2005). Logical form. In G. Sica (Ed.), Essays on the foundations of mathematics and logic, vol. 1 (pp. 115–153). Monza: Polimetrica International Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Duží, M., Jespersen B., Materna P. (2010). Procedural semantics for hyperintensional logic; Foundations and applications of transparent intensional logic. Series Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of Science. Berlin: Springer.

  18. D’Agostino, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The enduring scandal of deduction. Is propositional logic really uninformative? Synthese, 167, 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Floridi, L. (2004). Outline of a theory of strongly semantic information. Minds & Machines, 14, 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Floridi, L. (2005). ‘Is information meaningful data’? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn and Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gärdenfors, P. (1988): Knowledge in flux: Modelling the dynamics of epistemic states, A Bradford Book, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT.

  23. Hintikka, J. (1970). Surface information and depth information. In J. Hintikka & O. Suppes (Eds.), Information and inference (pp. 263–297). Reidel: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jespersen, B. (2003). Why the tuple theory of structured propositions isn’t a theory of structured propositions. Philosophia, 31, 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jespersen, B. (2005). Explicit intensionalisation, anti-actualism, and how Smith’s murderer might not have murdered Smith. Dialectica, 59, 285–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jespersen, B. (2008). Predication and extensionalization. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 479–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jespersen, B. (2010). Hyperintensions and procedural isomorphism: Alternative (½). In The Analytical Way. Proceedings of the 6th European Congress of Analytic Philosophy. Tadeusz Czarnecki, K. Kijania-Placek, O. Poller, and J. Woleński (eds.), College Publications, London, pp. 301–322.

  28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1977). Procedural semantics. Cognition, 5, 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaufmann, W. (1906). ‘Über die Konstitution des Elektrons’, Annalen der Physik, 19, 487–553, <http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k15326w/f497.chemindefer>

  30. King, J. C. (1995). Structured propositions and complex predicates. Nous, 29(4), 516–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. King, J. C. (2001). Structured propositions, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositionsstructured/, version as of 8 August 2001.

  32. Materna, P. (1998). Concepts and objects. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 63, Helsinki.

  33. Materna, P. (2004). Conceptual systems. Berlin: Logos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Materna, P., & Duží, M. (2005). The Parmenides principle. Philosophia, 32, 155–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mates, B. (1950). ‘Synonymity’, in: University of California Publications in Philosophy, 25, 201–226.

  36. Moschovakis, Y. N. (1994). Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In J. Väänänen & J. Oikkonen (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Logic (Vol. 2, pp. 210–249). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Moschovakis, Y. N. (2006). A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 27–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sequoiah-Grayson, S. (2006). Information flow and impossible situations. Logique et Analyse, 196, 371–398.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sequoiah-Grayson, S. (2008). The scandal of deduction (Hintikka on the information yield of deductive inferences). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37(1), 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sundholm, G. (1997). Inference vs. consequence. In T. Childers (Ed.), The logica yearbook 1997 (pp. 26–36). Prague 1998.

  41. Tichý, P. (1966). K explikaci pojmu obsah věty. Filosofický časopis 14, pp. 364–372. Translation ‘On explication of the notion “the content of a sentence’, reprinted in: Tichý (2004), pp. 53–68.

  42. Tichý, P. (1988). The foundations of Frege’s logic. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tichý, P. (2004). Collected papers in logic and philosophy. In V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen, C. Cheyne (Eds.), Prague: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences, and Dunedin: University of Otago Press.

  44. van Benthem, J., & Martinez, M.-C. (2008). The stories of logic and information. In P. Adriaans & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Philosophy of information: handbook of the philosophy of science (pp. 217–280). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Wagner, S. J. (1986). California semantics meets the Great Fact. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 27(3), 430–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routlege.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science FEI, VSB-Technical University Ostrava, 17. listopadu 15, 708 33, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Marie Duží

Authors
  1. Marie Duží
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Duží.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duží, M. The Paradox of Inference and the Non-Triviality of Analytic Information. J Philos Logic 39, 473–510 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9127-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9127-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation