David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 128 (1):137 - 167 (2006)
Epistemic logic begins with the recognition that our everyday talk about knowing and believing has some systematic features that we can track and re‡ect upon. Epistemic logicians have studied and extended these glints of systematic structure in fascinating and important ways since the early 1960s. However, for one reason or another, mainstream epistemologists have shown little interest. It is striking to contrast the marginal role of epistemic logic in contemporary epistemology with the centrality of modal logic for metaphysicians. This article is intended to help in correcting this oversight by presenting some important developments in epistemic logic and suggesting ways to understand their applicability to traditional epistemological problems. Obviously, by itself, tweaking the formal apparatus of epistemic logic does not solve traditional epistemological problems. Epistemic logic can help us to navigate through problems in a systematic fashion by unpacking the logic of the problematic concepts, it can also lead us to recognize problems that we had not anticipated. This is basically analogous to the role that modal logic has played in contemporary metaphysics.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Robert Nozick (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Hilary Putnam (1981). Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge University Press.
Edmund Gettier (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23 (6):121-123.
Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson (1985). On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (2):510-530.
Citations of this work BETA
Sven Bernecker (2012). Sensitivity, Safety, and Closure. Acta Analytica 27 (4):367-381.
John N. Williams (2015). Moore's Paradox in Thought: A Critical Survey. Philosophy Compass 10 (1):24-37.
Audrey Yap (2014). Idealization, Epistemic Logic, and Epistemology. Synthese 191 (14):3351-3366.
Similar books and articles
Yue J. Jiang (1993). An Intensional Epistemic Logic. Studia Logica 52 (2):259 - 280.
Jaakko Hintikka & John Symons (2003). Systems of Visual Identification in Neuroscience: Lessons From Epistemic Logic. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):89-104.
Barteld P. Kooi (2003). Probabilistic Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (4):381-408.
Timothy Williamson (2004). Some Computationalconstraints In Epistemic Logic. In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer 437--456.
Nina Gierasimczuk (2009). Bridging Learning Theory and Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese 169 (2):371-384.
Vincent F. Hendricks (2003). Active Agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (4):469-495.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2008). Epistemic Logic and Epistemology. In Vincent F. Hendricks & Duncan Pritchard (eds.), New Waves in Epistemology. Palgrave Macmillan
John Symons (2006). Where's the Bridge? Epistemology and Epistemic Logic. Philosophical Studies 128 (1):137 - 167.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads90 ( #43,398 of 1,790,256 )
Recent downloads (6 months)23 ( #34,974 of 1,790,256 )
How can I increase my downloads?