Revamping the restriction strategy
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press (2009)
This study continues the anti-realist’s quest for a principled way to avoid Fitch’s paradox. It is proposed that the Cartesian restriction on the anti-realist’s knowability principle ‘ϕ, therefore 3Kϕ’ should be formulated as a consistency requirement not on the premise ϕ of an application of the rule, but rather on the set of assumptions on which the relevant occurrence of ϕ depends. It is stressed, by reference to illustrative proofs, how important it is to have proofs in normal form before applying the proposed restriction. A similar restriction is proposed for the converse inference, the so-called Rule of Factiveness ‘3Kϕ therefore ϕ’. The proposed restriction appears to block another Fitch-style derivation that uses the KK -thesis in order to get around..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alessandro Giordani (2015). On a New Tentative Solution to Fitch’s Paradox. Erkenntnis 81 (3):597-611.
Paolo Maffezioli, Alberto Naibo & Sara Negri (2013). The Church–Fitch Knowability Paradox in the Light of Structural Proof Theory. Synthese 190 (14):2677-2716.
Sergei Artemov & Tudor Protopopescu (2013). Discovering Knowability: A Semantic Analysis. Synthese 190 (16):3349-3376.
Martin Fischer (2013). Some Remarks on Restricting the Knowability Principle. Synthese 190 (1):63-88.
Julien Murzi (2010). Knowability and Bivalence: Intuitionistic Solutions to the Paradox of Knowability. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 149 (2):269 - 281.
Similar books and articles
Helga Varden (2006). Locke's Waste Restriction and His Strong Voluntarism. Locke Studies 6:127-141.
Gustaf Arrhenius (2009). Can the Person Affecting Restriction Solve the Problems in Population Ethics? In M. A. Roberts & D. T. Wasserman (eds.), Harming Future Persons. Springer Verlag 289--314.
Matthew S. Bedke (2010). Rationalist Restrictions and External Reasons. Philosophical Studies 151 (1):39 - 57.
Neil Tennant (2010). Williamson's Woes. Synthese 173 (1):9-23.
Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno (2008). Knowability, Possibility and Paradox. In Vincent Hendricks (ed.), New Waves in Epistemology. Palgrave Macmillan
Peter Marton (2006). Verificationists Versus Realists: The Battle Over Knowability. Synthese 151 (1):81 - 98.
Richard Arneson, Listed Below Are Some Examples That Mil Introduces to Help Interpret His Liberty Principle and to Illustrate its Application.
Bernhard Weiss (2007). Truth and the Enigma of Knowability. Dialectica 61 (4):521–537.
Neil Tennant (2001). Is Every Truth Knowable? Reply to Williamson. Ratio 14 (3):263–280.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #167,471 of 1,938,467 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #98,698 of 1,938,467 )
How can I increase my downloads?