Synthese 101 (2):171 - 185 (1994)
|Abstract||The classical analysis of relevance in probabilistic terms does not fit legal, moral or conversational relevance, and, though analysis in terms of a psychological model may fit conversational relevance, it certainly does not fit legal, moral or evidential relevance. It is important to notice here that some sentences are ambiguous between conversational and non-conversational relevance. But, if and only ifR is relevant to a questionQ, R is a reason, though not necessarily a complete or conclusive reason, for accepting or rejecting something as an answer toQ. Reasons of this kind are governed by appropriate covering laws or principled probabilities and a number of questions thus arise about the relationship between relevance and certain formal-logical properties.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Deirdre Wilson & Dan Sperber (2002). Relevance Theory. In [Book Chapter] (Unpublished).
Raymond W. Gibbs Jr & Markus Tendahl (2006). Cognitive Effort and Effects in Metaphor Comprehension: Relevance Theory and Psycholinguistics. Mind and Language 21 (3):379–403.
Barbara Baum Levenbook (1984). On Universal Relevance in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):1 - 23.
Luciano Floridi (2008). Understanding Epistemic Relevance. Erkenntnis 69 (1):69 - 92.
Dan Sperber (2002). Truthfulness and Relevance in Telling The Time. Mind and Language 17:457-466.
Denis J. Hilton (1996). Mental Models and Causal Explanation: Judgements of Probable Cause and Explanatory Relevance. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (4):273 – 308.
Catherine Wearing (2010). Autism, Metaphor and Relevance Theory. Mind and Language 25 (2):196-216.
James P. Delgrande & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (1998). A Formal Analysis of Relevance. Erkenntnis 49 (2):137-173.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,297 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?