History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):195-213 (1999)
|Abstract||This paper further develops the system of illocutionary logic presented in ?Propositional logic of supposition and assertion? (Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1997, 38, 325-349) to accommodate an ?I believe that? operator and resolve Moore's Paradox. This resolution is accomplished by providing both a truth-conditional and a commitment-based semantics. An important feature of the logical system is that the correctness of some arguments depends on who it is that makes the argument. The paper then shows that the logical system can be expanded to resolve the surprise execution paradox puzzle. The prisoner's argument showing that he can't be executed by surprise is correct but his beliefs are incoherent. The judge's beliefs (and our beliefs) about this situation are not incoherent|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses (1986). Taken by Surprise: The Paradox of the Surprise Test Revisited. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (3):281 - 304.
J. Gerbrandy (2007). The Surprise Examination in Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese 155 (1):21 - 33.
William S. Cooper (1968). The Propositional Logic of Ordinary Discourse. Inquiry 11 (1-4):295 – 320.
Emiliano Lorini & Cristiano Castelfranchi (2007). The Cognitive Structure of Surprise: Looking for Basic Principles. Topoi 26 (1).
John Kearns (2007). An Illocutionary Logical Explanation of the Liar Paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic 28 (1):31-66.
Ken Levy (2009). The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads3 ( #201,930 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?