Propositional Q-Logic

Topic of the paper is Q-logic – a logic of agency in its temporal and modal context. Q-logic may be considered as a basal logic of agency since the most important stit-operators discussed in the literature can be defined or axiomatized easily within its semantical and syntactical framework. Its basic agent dependent operator, the Q-operator (also known as - or cstit-operator), which has been discussed independently by F. v. Kutschera and B. F. Chellas, is investigated here in respect of its relation to other temporal and modal operators. The main result of the paper, then, is a completeness result for a calculus of Q-logic with respect to a semantics defined on the tree-approach to agency as introduced and developed by, among others, F. v. Kutschera and N. D. Belnap.     

Propositional quantifiers

Summary In discussing propositional quantifiers we have considered two kinds of variables: variables occupying the argument places of connectives, and variables occupying the argument places of predicates.We began with languages which contained the first kind of variable, i.e., variables taking sentences as substituends. Our first point was that there appear to be no sentences in English that serve as adequate readings of formulas containing propositional quantifiers. Then we showed how a certain natural and illuminating extension of English by prosentences did provide perspicuous readings. The point of introducing prosentences was to provide a way of making clear the grammar of propositional variables: propositional variables have a prosentential character — not a pronominal character. Given this information we were able to show, on the assumption that the grammar of propositional variables in philosopher's English should be determined by their grammar in formal languages (unless a separate account of their grammar is provided), that propositional variables can be used in a grammatically and philosophically acceptable way in philosophers' English. According to our criteria of well-formedness Carnap's semantic definition of truth does not lack an essential predicate - despite arguments to the contrary. It also followed from our account of the prosentential character of bound propositional variables that in explaining propositional quantification, sentences should not be construed as names.One matter we have not discussed is whether such quantification should be called propositional, sentential, or something else. As our variables do not range over (they are not terms) either propositions, or sentences, each name is inappropriate, given the usual picture of quantification. But we think the relevant question in this context is, are we obtaining generality with respect to propositions, sentences, or something else?Because people have argued that all bound variables must have a pronominal character, we presented and discussed in the third section languages in which the variables take propositional terms as substituends. In our case we included names of propositions, that-clauses, and names of sentences in the set of propositional terms. We made a few comparisons with the languages discussed in the second section. We showed among other things how a truth predicate could be used to obtain generality. In contrast, the languages of the second section, using propositional variables, obtain generality without the use of a truth predicate.Special thanks are due to Nuel D. Belnap, Jr., who has given me much valuable assistance with the preparation of this paper. I also thank Alan Ross Anderson, Joseph Camp, Jr., Steven Davis, and Wilfrid Sellars for suggestions and corrections.The preparation of this paper was partly supported by a NSF grant.     

Propositional anaphors

Philosophical Studies - Propositions are posited to perform a variety of explanatory roles. One important role is being what is designated by a dedicated linguistic expression like a that-clause....     

Propositional discourse logic

A novel normal form for propositional theories underlies the logic pdl, which captures some essential features of natural discourse, independent from any particular subject matter and related only to its referential structure. In particular, pdlallows to distinguish vicious circularity from the innocent one, and to reason in the presence of inconsistency using a minimal number of extraneous assumptions, beyond the classical ones. Several, formally equivalent decision problems are identified as potential applications: non-paradoxical character of discourses, admissibility of arguments in argumentation networks, propositional satisfiability, and the existence of kernels of directed graphs. Directed graphs provide the basis for the semantics of pdl and the paper concludes by an overview of relevant graph-theoretical results and their applications in diagnosing paradoxical character of natural discourses.     

Propositional Attitudes Without Propositions

The most common account of attitude reports is the relational analysis according towhich an attitude verb taking that-clause complements expresses a two-placerelation between agents and propositions and the that-clause acts as an expressionwhose function is to provide the propositional argument. I will argue that a closerexamination of a broader range of linguistic facts raises serious problems for thisanalysis and instead favours a Russellian `multiple relations analysis' (which hasgenerally been discarded because of its apparent obvious linguistic implausibility).The resulting account can be given independent philosophical motivations within anintentionalist view of truth and predication.     

Propositional knowledge and know-how

This paper is roughly in two parts. The first deals with whether know-how is constituted by propositional knowledge, as discussed primarily by Gilbert Ryle (1949) The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson, Jason Stanley and Timothy Williamson (2001). Knowing how. Journal of Philosophy, 98, pp. 411–444 as well as Stephen Hetherington (2006). How to know that knowledge-that is knowledge-how. In S. Hetherington (Ed.) Epistemology futures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The conclusion of this first part is that know-how sometimes does and sometimes does not consist in propositional knowledge. The second part defends an analysis of know-how inspired by Katherine Hawley’ (2003). Success and knowledge-how. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40, pp. 19–31, insightful proposal that know-how requires counterfactual success. I conclude by showing how this analysis helps to explain why know-how sometimes does and sometimes does not consist of propositional knowledge.     

Propositional Logic of Essence

This paper presents a propositional version of Kit Fine"s (quantified) logic for essentialist statements, provides it with a semantics, and proves the former adequate (i.e. sound and complete) with respect to the latter.     

Propositional relevance through letter-sharing

The concept of relevance between classical propositional formulae, defined in terms of letter-sharing, has been around for a long time. But it began to take on a fresh life in the late 1990s when it was reconsidered in the context of the logic of belief change. Two new ideas appeared in independent work of Odinaldo Rodrigues and Rohit Parikh: the relation of relevance was considered modulo the choice of a background belief set, and the belief set was put into a canonical form, called its finest splitting. In the first part of this paper, we recall the ideas of Rodrigues and Parikh, and show that they yield equivalent definitions of what may be called canonical cell/path relevance. The second part presents the main new result of the paper: while the relation of canonical relevance is syntax-independent in the usual sense of the term, it nevertheless remains language-dependent in a deeper sense, as is shown with an example. The final part of the paper turns to questions of application, where we present a new concept of parameter-sensitive relevance that relaxes the Rodrigues/Parikh definition, allowing it to take into account extra-logical sources as well as purely logical ones.     

Cn-Definitions of Propositional Connectives

We attempt to define the classical propositional logic by use of appropriate derivability conditions called Cn-definitions. The conditions characterize basic properties of propositional connectives.     

Propositional self-control in children

The scope of Dulany's (1968) Theory of Propositional Control was examined using 54 $\text{11}\text{1}\text{2}\text{-, 8}\text{1}\text{2}\text{-,}\text{and 4}\text{1}\text{2}\text{-year-olds}$. Significance of the reinforcer was manipulated orthogonally to value of the reinforcer. With a six attribute concept attainment task $\text{4}\text{1}\text{2}\text{-}\text{year-olds}$ did not learn in either of two significant ways: a performance change over blocks, nor the acquisition of a rule of reinforcement. Children of $\text{8}\text{1}\text{2}$ and $\text{11}\text{1}\text{2}$ learned in both of the above senses. In addition, for the latter subjects the central equations of the theory held with strength and subjects' intentions accounted for more variance in performance than did the experimental manipulations. In supplementary experiments using a simplified task some $\text{4}\text{1}\text{2}\text{-}\text{year-olds}$ learned. When only the $\text{4}\text{1}\text{2}\text{-}\text{year-olds}$ who learned to a criterion were examined the central equations of the theory were nearly as strong as for subjects at ages $\text{8}\text{1}\text{2}$ and $\text{11}\text{1}\text{2}$. There was no evidence for learning without awareness at any age level.     

Propositional structure and truth conditions

This paper presents an account of the manner in which a proposition’s immediate structural features are related to its core truth-conditional features. The leading idea is that for a proposition to have a certain immediate structure is just for certain entities to play certain roles in the correct theory of the brute facts regarding that proposition’s truth conditions. The paper explains how this account addresses certain worries and questions recently raised by Jeffery King and Scott Soames.