In Bradley Armour-Garb (ed.),
Reflections on the Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 39-70 (
2017)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
The liar paradox is widely conceived as a problem for logic and semantics. On the basis
of empirical studies presented here, we suggest that there is an underappreciated
psychological dimension to the liar paradox and related problems, conceived as a problem
for human thinkers. Specific findings suggest that how one interprets the liar sentence and
similar paradoxes can vary in relation to one’s capacity for logical and reflective thought,
acceptance of certain logical principles, and degree of philosophical training, but also as a
function of factors such as religious belief, gender, and whether the problem is treated as
theoretical or practical. Though preliminary, these findings suggest that one reason the
liar paradox resists a final resolution is that it engages both aspects described by so-called
dual process accounts of human cognition.