The aim of the paper is to defend the view according to which all simple fictional sentences are meaningless. If their assertions seem to convey some truth evaluable information, and fictional sentences themselves seem to be true or false, it is because some pragmatic mechanisms are operative, enabling the expression of propositions not encoded in the semantic content of these sentences. According to some theorists, the mechanisms responsible for that process are the same as those responsible for generating conversational implicatures. (...) I argue against that claim and maintain that to comprehend the information conveyed by a fictional assertion, one must determine what kind of fictional assertion it is and only then apply the relevant interpretative rule adjusted to the fictional sentence used in that act. (shrink)

According to Adams and his colleagues, fictional sentences, i.e. sentences featuring fictional names, lack any truth value. To explain intuitions to the contrary, they refer to the pragmatics of fictional assertions and claim that sincere utterances of those sentences generate some conversational implicatures. They argue that all who take fictional sentences to have a truth value tend to mistake implicatures of assertions of such sentences with their literal content. The aim of the paper is to show that this argument is (...) not convincing.The challenge being that it doesn’t provide any satisfactory explanation as to what is negated in seemingly genuine disagreement cases in which fictional sentences are asserted. Sentential negation usually doesn’t affect (i.e. negate) a proposition which is conversationally implied, especially when it comes to the manner implicature. And, as I argue, an advocate of the pragmatic defence should maintain that this is the kind of conversational implicature that the assertion of fictional sentences generates. (shrink)

Gideon Rosen described the difficulties faced by those who claim that statements about possible worlds cannot be literally true. According to his argument, if the truth of modal sentences could be explained by referring to the hypothesis of the plurality of possible worlds, which is a sort of fiction for modal irrealists, the position would have antinomic consequence. I argue that the advocate of broad modal fictionalism can avoid such a devastating conclusion. To that end, her position should be given (...) in meta-language describing the necessary and sufficient conditions of accepting modal sentences as true in terms of fiction of possible worlds. I show that there is a coherent way of reading ‘it is accepted as true’ that allows one to maintain that the disjunction of two mutually contradictory propositions can be accepted without accepting either of them. (shrink)

Counterpossibles are counterfactuals with an impossible antecedent. According to the orthodox view of counterfactuals, all counterpossibles are vacuously true. This is puzzling because some counterpossible statements seem to be false. The paper analyzes two approaches to explaining why certain counterpossibles, though perhaps true, may appear to be false. The first, which appeals to the Gricean mechanism of conversational implicatures, asserts that some counterpossibles appear to be false because their assertion carries with it a false conversational implicature. However, I argue that, (...) under a closer scrutiny, this approach collapses. I therefore turn to a second approach, proposed by Timothy Williamson. It appeals to a heuristic according to which speakers may regard a counterpossible to be false if they have previously accepted its opposite. Since the applicability of Williamson’s solution is limited, I suggest a more general account. Its underlining idea is that a counterpossible is rejected if the speaker cannot find what they regard as a universally true conditional function derivable from the counterpossible by substitutions and syntactic transformations. (shrink)

W artykule przedstawiam tzw. chwyt z zasadnej stwierdzalności (WAM) wymierzony w znaną argumentację E. Gettiera, która miała wykazać nieadekwatność tradycyjnej definicji wiedzy. Keith DeRose sformułował trzy warunki poprawności WAM – pokazuję, że zaproponowany w pracy WAM je spełnia. Jeśli zaproponowany sposób wyjaśnienia Gettierowskich przykładów jest poprawny, to konkluzywność argumentacji Gettiera staje się wątpliwa. Jeśli jednak nie jest i przykładów Gettiera nie można wyjaśnić poprzez odwołanie się do generowania fałszywych implikatur konwersacyjnych przez prawdziwe asercje określonych zdań, to warunki poprawności nałożone przez (...) DeRose’a na WAM okazują się niewystarczające. W pracy proponuję więc uzupełnić listę tychże o następujący warunek: jeżeli w określonym kontekście k asercja danego zdania Z ma być nieakceptowalna jedynie ze względu na generowanie w tych okolicznościach fałszywych implikatur i1, ..., in, to asercja tego zdania w każdym innym kontekście k*, która generować będzie w k* dokładnie te same fałszywe implikatury i1, ..., in, ma być również nieakceptowalna (i to w równym stopniu). (shrink)

The aims of this paper are to provide a detailed taxonomy of noncanonical uses of interrogative sentences, i.e. when they are used not to ask a question but to convey some information, or to ask a question albeit not that expressed by the interrogative sentence exploited in the act, to identify properties of circumstances where an interrogative sentence is being used in this way, and to propose some maxims that govern the rational use of questions. Four main categories of such (...) cases are presented, and a few further subclasses are differentiated. I show how these types are interrelated, and what logical features differentiate them. I also propose a hypothesis for when an interrogative sentence is not being used in its primary mode. Studies on circumstances in which questions are used in other ways can shed light on maxims that govern asking and questioning in a rational conversation; therefore, some possible maxims of this kind are proposed. (shrink)

The paper concerns the semantics of belief reports. The following definition is proposed: if rational agent x does not accept any sentence, which is true under x’s interpretation of expressions iff not-p, and x does not reject any sentence, which is true under x’s interpretation iff p, then (x believes that p iff x accepts  which is true under x’s interpretation iff p). The term ‘x’s interpretation of an expression e’ is to be understood: something which x actually refers (...) to by using e (rather than a object she intends to refer). This is to say that to ascribe a belief to rational agent one should use words which have the same reference as words used by the agent. We believe it could solve Krpike’s puzzles about belief on the price that sometimes names used by the agent refer to others entities than when we use them. (shrink)

The Gettier problem concerns the definition of knowledge as justified true belief. In the paper I argue that Gettier's cases are not cases of justified true belief because Gettier's examples rely on some problematic assumptions. The first is rather elementary definition of justification and the other is that justification is preserved by entailment, that is, (A) for all agents X, if X is justified in believing that p , and X realizes that the truth of p entails the truth of (...) q , then X would also be justified in believing that q . For the simplistic conception of justification has some alarming consequences we pursue more adequate definition of justification which would satisfy the idea that a necessary condition of justification is to entail or to be entailed by a true proposition. We also show that the (A) is not necessary to provide an elegant counter-example to the definition of knowledge if the elementary definition of justification is adopted. (shrink)

In the paper I present and analyze the most common arguments in a favor of epistemic contextualism i. e. the thesis that the truth-value of a given knowledge report varies with the context of its attribution. I point out why these arguments seem to be unsound or inconclusive. I also appeal to recent empirical studies carried out lately by Joshua May, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Jay G. Hull and Aaron Zimmerman whose results suggest that the contextualists’ intuitions concerning the evaluation of knowledge (...) attributions are not so commonly shared among competent speakers and therefore probably false. It follows from the study that the most common evaluations we make are contradict those predicted by the contextualists. (shrink)

This article explores the connection between questions and conversational implicatures. We put forward a theoretical argument to the effect that questions can contain such implicatures. We also present extensive empirical material that confirms this hypothesis. The article focuses on a class of utterances used simultaneously to express an epistemic stance toward a state of affairs stated in a subordinate clause and to receive a response from an interlocutor, like in the following example: Don’t you think Peter should be going home (...) now? (shrink)

The main aim of the paper is to discuss some recent definitions of lie and lying, particularly that proposed recently in Edukacja Filozoficzna by Andrzej Stępnik. First I point out that his proposals share common conviction that among other things one has to have intention to deceive someone in order to lie. But this is wrong since it is quite clear that in a case of bold-face lies one can lie without having this intention. And bold-face lies are lies. It (...) follows that not only Stępnik’s definitions but all descriptive definitions of lies and lying sharing this condition are too narrow, so are inadequate. Instead of giving another descriptive definition of lying and lie, some précising definitions are proposed. According to first of them: A person x lies to y iff (i) x claims to y something that x doesn’t believe, and (ii) x doesn’t inform y that she doesn’t believe what she clams. According to another; A person x lies to y iff (i) by uttering something x expresses some propositional attitude (belief, desire, knowledge etc.), (ii) x doesn’t have this attitude, (ii) x doesn’t inform y that (ii) And the last states: A person x lies to y iff (i) x performs some speech act, (ii) some propositional attitude is one of the necessary conditions of sincery condition of this act, (iii) x doesn’t have this propositional attitude, (iv) x doesn’t inform y that (iii). We also propose crucial definition of claiming: A person x claims at a context C that p iff there is some sentence S of some language L (which x understands perfectly): (i) x utters S at C, (ii) according to semantic rules of L: uttering at C sentence S means that p, (iii) x is disposed at C to confirm the truthfulness of S. and expressing: A person x by uttering S expresses some kind of propositional attitude that p iff for all who are acquainted with proper linguistic or social convention is reasonable to attribute this kind of propositional attitude that p to x. (shrink)

Przedmiotem pracy są uwagi Jerzego Pelca dotyczące pojęcia kłamstwa i kłamania opublikowane w O pojęciu kłamstwa – z punktu widzenia semiotyki (1990). Przedstawioną w niej definicję kłamania porównuję z warunkami nakładanymi na to pojęcie przez innych autorów. Pokazuję, że zdaniem Pelca, warunek ekstensji przekonań nie jest koniecznym warunkiem na kłamstwo. Dodatkowo, zauważam, iż pewne uwagi Pelca skłaniają do wniosku, że można kłamać implikując coś, co uważa się za fałsz, nie zaś wyraźnie to stwierdzając. Argumentuję, że przyjmowany w analizowanej pracy warunek (...) chęci oszukania adresata jest wątpliwym warunkiem koniecznym kłamania. Ostatecznie, uwzględniając spostrzeżenia Pelca, proponuję następująca definicję: (DEF. Kłamania*) Osoba A kłamie w określonym kontekście K osobie B, że p, zawsze i tylko wtedy, gdy: (1) A posługuje się w K pewnym znakiem Z, zaś zgodnie z pewną przyjętą lub utartą konwencją posłużenie się Z przez A wobec B w K może być zasadnie uznane za twierdzenie przez A wobec B, że p, i (2) A nie uznaje w K, że p, oraz (3) nie powiadamia uprzednio o tym B, albo też (2*) A uznaje w K, że p, ale (3*) zakłada, że pomimo (1) B uzna, że A nie sądzi, że p. (shrink)

Building on our diverse research traditions in the study of reasoning, language and communication, the Polish School of Argumentation integrates various disciplines and institutions across Poland in which scholars are dedicated to understanding the phenomenon of the force of argument. Our primary goal is to craft a methodological programme and establish organisational infrastructure: this is the first key step in facilitating and fostering our research movement, which joins people with a common research focus, complementary skills and an enthusiasm to work (...) together. This statement—the Manifesto—lays the foundations for the research programme of the Polish School of Argumentation. (shrink)

A cross-cultural survey experiment revealed a widespread tendency to rely on a rule’s letter over its spirit when deciding which acts violate the rule. This tendency’s strength varied markedly across (k = 15) field sites, owing to cultural variation in the impact of moral appraisals on judgments of rule violation. Compared to laypeople, legal experts were more inclined to disregard their moral evaluations of the acts altogether, and consequently exhibited more pronounced textualist tendencies. Finally, we evaluated a plausible mechanism for (...) the emergence of textualism: In a two-player coordination game, incentives to coordinate in the absence of communication reinforced participants’ adherence to rules’ literal meaning. Together, these studies (Ntotal = 5495) help clarify the origins and allure of textualism, especially in the law. Within heterogeneous communities in which members diverge in their moral appraisals involving a rule’s purpose, the rule’s literal meaning provides a clear focal point—an easily identifiable point of agreement enabling coordinated interpretation among citizens, lawmakers and judges. (shrink)

In this paper we introduce a computational control framework that can keep AI-driven military autonomous devices operating within the boundaries set by applicable rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) related to targeting. We discuss the necessary legal tests and variables, and introduce the structure of a hypothetical IHL-compliant targeting system.

BackgroundDepression and anxiety create a large health burden and increase the risk of premature mortality. Mental health screening is vital, but more sophisticated screening and monitoring methods are needed. The Ellipsis Health App addresses this need by using semantic information from recorded speech to screen for depression and anxiety.ObjectivesThe primary aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of collecting weekly voice samples for mental health screening. Additionally, we aim to demonstrate portability and improved performance of Ellipsis’ machine learning (...) models for patients of various ages.MethodsStudy participants were current patients at Desert Oasis Healthcare, mean age 63 years. Two non-randomized cohorts participated: one with a documented history of depression within 24 months prior to the study, and the other without depression. Participants recorded 5-min voice samples weekly for 6 weeks via the Ellipsis Health App. They also completed PHQ-8 and GAD-7 questionnaires to assess for depression and anxiety, respectively.ResultsProtocol completion rate was 61% for both groups. Use beyond protocol was 27% for Group Positive and 9% for Group Negative. The Ellipsis Health App showed an AUC of 0.82 for the combined groups when compared to the PHQ-8 and GAD-7 with a threshold score of 10. Performance was high for senior participants as well as younger age ranges. Additionally, many participants spoke longer than the required 5 min.ConclusionThe Ellipsis Health App demonstrated feasibility in using voice recordings to screen for depression and anxiety among various age groups and the machine learning models using Transformer methodology maintain performance and improve over LSTM methodology when applied to the study population. (shrink)

The paper presents fragments of a Byzantine icon discovered in 2015 during regular archaeological excavations carried out in Chełm, eastern Poland. Iconographic analyses allow the nine surviving fragments to be interpreted as belonging to a diptych wing with the Great Feasts cycle. The icon represents archaic iconography of the subject, with the scene of Transfiguration placed after Entry into Jerusalem and before the Crucifixion. The artefact was created in the second half or at the close of the 12th century, and (...) it was made from steatite, which has been confirmed by petrographic analyses. The icon was discovered in the remains of a palace complex of King Daniel Romanovich, the greatest ruler of the Galicia-Volhynia Lands. The results of the archaeological research allow the terminus ante quem for the icon’s arrival in Chełm to be determined as before the middle of the 13th century. Various possible explanations as to how the icon found its way to Chełm are also explored in the paper. (shrink)

Standard deontic logic (SDL) is defined on the basis of possible world semantics and is a logic of alethic-deontic modalities rather than deontic modalities alone. The interpretation of the concepts of obligation and permission comes down exclusively to the logical value that a sentence adopts for the accessible deontic alternatives. Here, we set forth a different approach, this being a logic which additionally takes into consideration whether sentences stand in relation to the normative system or to the system of values (...) under which we predicate the deontic qualifications. By taking this aspect into account, we arrive at a logical system which preserves laws proper to a deontic logic but where the standard paradoxes of deontic logic do not arise. It is a logic of strictly-deontic modalities DR. (shrink)

Here, we discuss historical, philosophical and technical problems associated with relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. First, Section 1 is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. Second, we address the history of relating semantics and some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, particularly whether the direct incorporation of the relation into the language of relating (...) logic is needed. The starting point for our considerations presented here is the 1st Workshop On Relating Logic and the selected papers for this issue. (shrink)

In this interview, Tomasz Zarębski speaks with Allan Janik, co-author of _Wittgenstein’s Vienna_ (1973, with Stephen Toulmin), on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of the publication of this pathbreaking book. The conversation concerns the circumstances, motivations and reasons for his undertaking the work on the book, as well as its reception and place in Wittgenstein scholarship. A large part of the discussion refers to his perspective of Wittgenstein, Toulmin’s philosophical writings, and Janik’s own vision of philosophy. The (...) interview took place in Innsbruck on 23 rd and 25 th August 2023. (shrink)