Logical Omniscience and Acknowledged vs. Consequential Commitments

Questions, Discourse and Dialogue: 20 Years After Making It Explicit, Proceedings of AISB50 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider the explanatory resources that Robert Brandom‟s distinction between acknowledged and consequential commitments affords in relation to the problem of logical omniscience. With this distinction the importance of the doxastic perspective under consideration for the relationship between logic and norms of reasoning is emphasized, and it becomes possible to handle a number of problematic cases discussed in the literature without thereby incurring a commitment to revisionism about logic. 12

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-10-07

Downloads
442 (#4,468)

6 months
65 (#242,015)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Niels Skovgaard-Olsen
University of Freiburg

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

.Daniel Kahneman & Shane Frederick - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
What is the Normative Role of Logic?Hartry Field - 2009 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83 (1):251-268.
The Epistemology of Belief and the Epistemology of Degrees of Belief.Richard Foley - 1992 - American Philosophical Quarterly 29 (2):111 - 124.
What is the Normative Role of Logic?Peter Milne - 2009 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 83 (1):269-298.
Eine komparative Theorie der Stärke von Argumenten.Georg J. W. Dorn - 2005 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):34–43.

Add more references