Is there a logic of confirmation transfer?
Erkenntnis 53 (3):309-335 (2000)
| Abstract | This article begins by exploring a lost topic in the philosophy of science:the properties of the relations evidence confirming h confirmsh'' and, more generally, evidence confirming each ofh1, h2, ..., hm confirms at least one of h1, h2,ldots;, hn''.The Bayesian understanding of confirmation as positive evidential relevanceis employed throughout. The resulting formal system is, to say the least, oddlybehaved. Some aspects of this odd behaviour the system has in common withsome of the non-classical logics developed in the twentieth century. Oneaspect – its ``parasitism'''' on classical logic – it does not, and it is this featurethat makes the system an interesting focus for discussion of questions in thephilosophy of logic. We gain some purchase on an answer to a recently prominentquestion, namely, what is a logical system? More exactly, we ask whether satisfaction of formal constraints is sufficient for a relation to be considered a (logical) consequence relation. The question whether confirmation transfer yields a logical system is answered in the negative, despite confirmation transfer having the standard properties of a consequence relation, on the grounds that validity of sequents in the system is not determined by the meanings of the connectives that occur in formulas. Developing the system in a different direction, we find it bears on the project of ``proof-theoretic semantics'''': conferring meaning on connectives by means of introduction (and possibly elimination) rules is not an autonomous activity, rather it presupposes a prior, non-formal,notion of consequence. Some historical ramifications are alsoaddressed briefly. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRoss Thomas Brady (forthcoming). Free Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic.
Lloyd Humberstone (2007). Identical Twins, Deduction Theorems, and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCsK Fragment of S. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):435 - 487.
Lloyd Humberstone (2006). Identical Twins, Deduction Theorems, and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCsK Fragment of S. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (5):435 - 487.
Mary Hesse (1970). Theories and the Transitivity of Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 37 (1):50-63.
Aysel Dogan (2005). Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):243 - 259.
Peter Milne (1994). Classical Harmony: Rules of Inference and the Meaning of the Logical Constants. Synthese 100 (1):49 - 94.
Beata Konikowska (1990). A Two-Valued Logic for Reasoning About Different Types of Consequence in Kleene's Three-Valued Logic. Studia Logica 49 (4):541 - 555.
Jonathan P. Seldin (2000). On the Role of Implication in Formal Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (3):1076-1114.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Yannis Delmas-Rigoutsos (1997). A Double Deduction System for Quantum Logic Based on Natural Deduction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (1):57-67.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #178,434 of 548,941 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
