Publicity and Common Commitment to Believe

Erkenntnis 88 (3):1059-1080 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Information can be public among a group. Whether or not information is public matters, for example, for accounts of interdependent rational choice, of communication, and of joint intention. A standard analysis of public information identifies it with (some variant of) common belief. The latter notion is stipulatively defined as an infinite conjunction: for p to be commonly believed is for it to believed by all members of a group, for all members to believe that all members believe it, and so forth. This analysis is often presupposed without much argument in philosophy. Theoretical entrenchment or intuitions about cases might give some traction on the question, but give little insight about why the identification holds, if it does. The strategy of this paper is to characterize a practical-normative role for information being public, and show that the only things that play that role are (variants of) common belief as stipulatively characterized. In more detail: a functional role for “taking a proposition for granted” in non-isolated decision making is characterized. I then present some minimal conditions under which such an attitude is correctly held. The key assumption links this attitude to beliefs about what is public. From minimal a priori principles, we can argue that a proposition being public among a group entails common commitment to believe among that group. Later sections explore partial converses to this result, the factivity of publicity and publicity from the perspective of outsiders to the group, and objections to the aprioricity of the result deriving from a posteriori existential presuppositions.

Similar books and articles

Commitments in Groups and Commitments of Groups.Jacob D. Heim - 2015 - Phenomenology and Mind 1 (9):74-82.
The frequency and discourse features of the public metonym.Peter A. Cramer - 2008 - Critical Discourse Studies 5 (3):265-280.
Group beliefs.Raimo Tuomela - 1992 - Synthese 91 (3):285-318.
Do We Have a Right to Common Goods?Andrei Marmor - 2001 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 14 (2):213-225.
The Legitimacy of Groups: Toward a We-Reasoning View.Agnes Tam - 2020 - Analyse & Kritik 42 (2):343-368.
A Theory of Bayesian Groups.Franz Dietrich - 2017 - Noûs 53 (3):708-736.
Culture and modularity.Dan Sperber & Lawrence Hirschfeld - 2005 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen P. Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York, US: Oxford University Press USA.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-02-15

Downloads
649 (#25,812)

6 months
110 (#38,648)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Williams
University of Leeds

Citations of this work

Who’s afraid of common knowledge?Giorgio Sbardolini - 2024 - Philosophical Studies 181 (4):859-877.
Common Knowledge and Hinge Epistemology.Michael Wilby - 2024 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 32 (1).

Add more citations

References found in this work

Convention: A Philosophical Study.David Kellogg Lewis - 1969 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Knowledge and practical interests.Jason Stanley - 2005 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Modal Logic as Metaphysics.Timothy Williamson - 2013 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Belief, Credence, and Pragmatic Encroachment.Jacob Ross & Mark Schroeder - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):259-288.

View all 21 references / Add more references