Suppose Yalcin is wrong about epistemic modals

Philosophical Studies 162 (3):625-635 (2013)
Abstract
In “Epistemic Modals,” Seth Yalcin argues that what explains the deficiency of sentences containing epistemic modals of the form ‘p and it might be that not-p’ is that sentences of this sort are strictly contradictory, and thus are not instances of a Moore-paradox as has been previous suggested. Benjamin Schnieder, however, argues in his Yalcin’s explanation of these sentences’ deficiency turns out to be insufficiently general, as it cannot account for less complex but still defective sentences, such as ‘Suppose it might be raining.’ Consequently, Schnieder proposes his own, expressivist treatment of epistemic modals which he thinks can explain the deficiency of both the original sentence type as well as more complex cases of embedded sentences containing epistemic modals. In this study, I argue that although Schnieder is right to draw our attention to the explanatory failure of Yalcin’s account, we aren’t forced to adopt Schnieder’s expressivist account of epistemic modals. I defend instead a contextualist-friendly alternative which explains the deficiencies of all the relevant sentence types, while avoiding both the defects of Yalcin’s account and the intuitive costs of expressivism
Keywords Philosophy of language  Epistemic modals  Supposition  Expressivism  Contextualism  Moore paradoxes
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,826
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
David Barnett (2006). Zif is If. Mind 115 (459):519-566.

View all 15 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Moritz Schulz (2010). Wondering What Might Be. Philosophical Studies 149 (3):367 - 386.
Malte Willer (2011). Realizing What Might Be. Philosophical Studies 153 (3):365 - 375.
Seth Yalcin (2010). Probability Operators. Philosophy Compass 5 (11):916-37.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-08-12

Total downloads

71 ( #21,528 of 1,100,144 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

9 ( #27,984 of 1,100,144 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.