The logical structure of Michael Williams's response to skepticism

This paper aims to reconstruct the overarching logical structure of Michael Williams's response to philosophical skepticism. One goal is to forestall overhasty dismissals of his position based on failures to understand the logical relations among his various anti-skeptical claims and arguments. In many places, Williams suggests that the strategy he calls “theoretical diagnosis” is sufficient to defuse the skeptical challenge and that, accordingly, his anti-skeptical strategy consists solely in developing theoretical diagnoses. According to the account developed here, this claim is misleading—in need of significant qualification, if not outright false. Even so, the paper concludes that, in its essentials, Williams's response is structurally sound, given his understanding of the problem posed by skepticism. The paper ends with a brief assessment of the merits of that response.     

The logical structure of linguistic commitment II: Systems of relevant commitment entailment

In The Logical Structure of Linguistic Commitment I (The Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (1994), 369–400), we sketch a linguistic theory (inspired by Brandom's Making it Explicit) which includes an expressivist account of the implication connective, : the role of is to make explicit the inferential proprieties among possible commitments which proprieties determine, in part, the significances of sentences. This motivates reading (A B) as commitment to A is, in part, commitment to B. Our project is to study the logic of . LSLC I approximates (A B) as anyone committed to A is committed to B, ignoring issues of whether A is relevant to B. The present paper includes considerations of relevance, motivating systems of relevant commitment entailment related to the systems of commitment entailment of LSLC I. We also consider the relevance logics that result from a commitment reading of Fine's semantics for relevance logics, a reading that Fine suggests.     

The philosophy of logical wholism

The present paper is one installment in a lengthy task, the replacement of atomistic interpretations of Wittgenstein's Tractatus by a wholistic interpretation on which the world-in-logical-space is not constructed out of objects but objects are abstracted from out of that space. Here, general arguments against atomism are directed toward a specific target, the four aspects of the atomistic reading of Tractatus given in the Hintikkas' Investigating Wittgenstein (Hintikka & Hintikka 1986). The aspects in question are called the semantical, metaphysical, epistemological and formal.What follows a précis of the Hintikkas' rendering of Wittgenstein's perspective is a characterization of the wholistic interpretation, comparing Wittgenstein's world and the transcendental conditions it sets upon possible notation to a blank page and the conditions it sets upon what is about to be written there. There will not be occasion to bring arguments against each plank in the atomist's platform or in support of each facet of wholism. But there is an extended treatment of the first two aspects — the semantical and metaphysical — which takes off from Wittgenstein's determination that, in his hands, logic must take care of itself.The second half of the paper contains a negative assessment of the support the atomistic reading can glean from the texts of Tractatus and Notebooks. From a detailed look into a range of relevant textual and translational issues, we find little there to encourage that interpretation and much to discourage it.The paper closes on a preliminary consideration of one segment of the formal aspect of the Hintikkas' atomism, the idea that the analysis of Tractatus is the analysis of Russell or is, at worst, a near relative. Examination shows that Wittgenstein would have little reason to model his analysis on that of Russell. The fundamentally wholistic vision expressed in Tractatus requires a distinctively non-Russellian, decompositional version of analysis.Words are like a film on deep water Ludwig Wittgenstein Notebooks 1914–1916 A highly condensed version of the ideas here presented will appear in the article Hintikka's Tractatus in Proceedings of the XIVth International Wittgenstein Symposium, Wittgenstein Centenary Celebration, 1991.     

The logical study of science

The relation between logic and philosophy of science, often taken for granted, is in fact problematic. Although current fashionable criticisms of the usefulness of logic are usually mistaken, there are indeed difficulties which should be taken seriously — having to do, amongst other things, with different scientific mentalities in the two disciplines (section 1). Nevertheless, logic is, or should be, a vital part of the theory of science. To make this clear, the bulk of this paper is devoted to the key notion of a scientific theory in a logical perspective. First, various formal explications of this notion are reviewed (section 2), then their further logical theory is discussed (section 3). In the absence of grand inspiring programs like those of Klein in mathematics or Hilbert in metamathematics, this preparatory ground-work is the best one can do here. The paper ends on a philosophical note, discussing applicability and merits of the formal approach to the study of science (section 4).I would like to thank David Pearce and Veikko Rantala for their helpful comments.     

On the logical structure of de Finetti's notion of event

This paper sheds new light on the subtle relation between probability and logic by (i) providing a logical development of Bruno de Finetti's conception of events and (ii) suggesting that the subjective nature of de Finetti's interpretation of probability emerges in a clearer form against such a logical background. By making explicit the epistemic structure which underlies what we call Choice-based probability we show that whilst all rational degrees of belief must be probabilities, the converse doesn't hold: some probability values don't represent decision-relevant quantifications of uncertainty.     

Information about the logical structure of a category affects generalization

This paper considers whether information about the logical structure of a category affects how people generalize. We carried out three experiments with the following structure: participants were first presented with a set of training items, and were subsequently asked to decide whether new items belonged to the same category as the training items. Each experiment had two conditions that differed only in terms of the category label provided for the training items; different category labels conveyed different information about the logical structure of the category to which the training items were supposed to belong. In all cases, participants' generalization was greatly affected by such information. Our results suggest that people make the default assumption that category labels correspond to groupings of highly similar objects.     

Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse

A network model of logical and semantic structures from which speakers or writers generate linguistic messages at the discourse level is presented. While linguistic structures were considered in developing the model, the semantic and logical networks are defined without reference to linguistic structures and thus may be used to represent knowledge structures acquired from both linguistic and nonlinguistic sources. A second problem addressed is that of determining what logical and semantic information is acquired when a text is understood. To assess acquired knowledge, a procedure is presented for coding a subject's verbal reconstruction of knowledge acquired from a presented text (or other input) against the logical and semantic structure from which the text (or other input) was derived. The procedures are illustrated using data obtained from children who were asked to “retell” simple narrative stories.     

The logical form of categorical sentences

In this paper, I propose an account of self-knowledge for desires. According to this account, we form beliefs about our own desires on the basis of our grounds for those desires. First, I distinguish several types of desires and their corresponding grounds. Next, I make the case that we usually believe that we have a certain desire on the basis of our grounds for it. Then, I argue that a belief formed thus is epistemically privileged. Finally, I compare this account to two other similar accounts of self-knowledge.