概率与命题

本文的主题是揭示信念对象。关于信念对象最流行的观点是指称主义的观点,指称主义者或把个体与性质组成的命题视为信念对象,或把可能世界集视为信念对象,但若从贝叶斯的确证理论出发来考察信念对象的话,就会发现指称主义与贝叶斯主义间的冲突,由于贝叶斯主义是一种相当成功的理论,因而指称主义是错误的。贝叶斯主义需要的是一种非指称的信念对象,对贝叶斯理论而言,首内涵可以扮演置信对象这一角色。不过首内涵缺乏结构,缺乏指称信息,前者可以用借助于结构化首内涵来解决,后者可以在前者的基础上借助于丰富化内涵进而借助于丰富化的命题来解决。     

Hierarchical Propositions

The notion of a proposition is central to philosophy. But it is subject to paradoxes. A natural response is a hierarchical account and, ever since Russell proposed his theory of types in 1908, this has been the strategy of choice. But in this paper I raise a problem for such accounts. While this does not seem to have been recognized before, it would seem to render existing such accounts inadequate. The main purpose of the paper, however, is to provide a new hierarchical account that solves the problem.     

Abstracting Propositions

This paper examines the potential for abstracting propositions – an as yet untested way of defending the realist thesis that propositions as abstract entities exist. I motivate why we should want to abstract propositions and make clear, by basing an account on the neo-Fregean programme in arithmetic, what ontological and epistemological advantages a realist can gain from this. I then raise a series of problems for the abstraction that ultimately have serious repercussions for realism about propositions in general. I first identify problems about the number of entities able to be abstracted using these techniques. I then focus on how issues of language relativity result in problems akin to the Caesar problem in arithmetic by exposing circularity and modal concern over the status of the criterion of identity for propositions.     

Elusive Propositions

Journal of Philosophical Logic - David Kaplan observed in Kaplan (1995) that the principle $\forall p \Diamond \forall q (Qq \leftrightarrow q = p)$ cannot be verified at a world in a standard...     

Not Propositions

Current computational accounts of meaning in the cognitive sciences are based on abstract, amodal symbols (e.g., nodes, links, propositions) that are arbitrarily related to their referents. We argue that such accounts lack convincing empirical support and that they do not provide a satisfactory account for linguistic meaning. One historic set of results supporting the abstract symbol view has come from investigation into comprehension of negated sentences, such as “The buttons are not black.” These sentences are presumed to be understood as two propositions composed of abstract symbols. One proposition corresponds to “the buttons are black,” and it is embedded in another proposition corresponding to “it is not true.” Thus, the propositional account predicts (a) that comprehension of negated sentences should take longer than comprehension of the corresponding positive sentence (because of the time needed to construct the embedding), but (b) that the resulting embedded propositions are informationally equivalent (but of opposite valence) to the simple proposition underlying the positive sentence. Contrary to these predictions, Experiment 1 demonstrates that negated sentences out of context are interpreted as situationally ambiguous, that is, as conveying less specific information than positive sentences. Furthermore, Experiment 2 demonstrates that when negated sentences are used in an appropriate context, readers do not take longer to understand them. Thus, difficulty with negation is demonstrated to be an artifact of presentation out of context. After discussing other serious problems with the use of abstract symbols, we describe the Indexical Hypothesis. This embodied account of meaning does not depend on abstract symbols, and hence it provides a more satisfactory account of meaning.     

On Hierarchical Propositions

Journal of Philosophical Logic - There is an apparent dilemma for hierarchical accounts of propositions, raised by Bruno Whittle (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46, 215–231, 2017): either...     

Empty Names and `Gappy' Propositions

In recent years a number of authors sympathetic to Referentialistaccounts of proper names have argued that utterances containingempty names express `gappy,' or incomplete, propositions. In this paper I want to take issue with this suggestion.In particular, I argue versions of this approach developedby David Braun, Nathan Salmon, Ken Taylor, and by Fred Adams,Gary Fuller, and Robert Stecker.