Везде
New semantics for urn logics: taming the enduring scandal of deduction
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
New semantics for urn logics: taming the enduring scandal of deduction
Annotation
PII
S2074-14720000616-8-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Walter A. Carnielli  Bruno R. Mendon ̧ca
Edition
Volume 26 Issue 1
Pages
91-109
Abstract
The traditional theory of semantic information, originally proposed by [Bar-Hillel, Carnap, 1953], provides a versatile and pretty plausible conception of what kind of thing semantic information is. It embodies, however, the so-called “scandal of deduction”, a thesis according to which logical truths are informationally empty. The scandal of deduction is prob- lematic because it contradicts the fact that ordinary reasoners often do not know whether or not a given sentence is a logical truth. Hence, it is plausible to say, at least from the epistemological standpoint of those reasoners, that such logical sentences are really inform- ative. In order to improve over traditional theory, we can replace its classical metatheory by the so-called urn logics, non-standard systems of logic (described in detail below) that better describe the epistemological standpoint of ordinary reasoners. Notwithstanding, the applic- ation of such systems to the problem of semantic information faces some challenges: first, we must define truth-conditional semantics for these systems. Secondly, we need to precisely distinguish two systems of urn logic, namely, perfect and imperfect urn logics. Finally, we need to prove characterization theorems for both systems of urn logic. In this paper we offer original (and hopefully, elegant) solutions for all such problems.
Keywords
semantic information, scandal of deduction, logical knowledge, urn logics, truth-conditional semantics, characterization theorems, Hintikka normal forms, non-classical logics
Date of publication
01.06.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
411
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Bar-Hillel, Carnap, 1953 – Bar-Hillel, Y., Carnap, R. “Semantic information”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1953, Vol. 4, No. 14, pp. 147–157.
    2. 

  2.  Cresswell, 1982 – Cresswell, M.J. “Urn models: A classical exposition”, Studia Logica, 1982, Vol. 41, No. 2–3, pp. 109–130.
    3. 

  3.  Floridi, 2004 – Floridi, L. “Outline of a theory of strongly semantic information”, Minds and machines, 2004, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 197–221.
    4. 

  4.  Freire, 2015 – Freire, R.A. “First-order logic and first-order functions”, Logica Univer- salis, 2015, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 281–329.
    5. 

  5.  Hintikka, 1965 – Hintikka, J. “Distributive normal forms in first-order logic”, in: Stud- ies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Elsevier, 1965, Vol. 40, pp. 48–91. Hintikka, 1970a – Hintikka, J. “Information, deduction, and the a priori”, Nous, 1970,pp. 135–152.
    6. 

  6.  Hintikka, 1970b – Hintikka, J. “Surface information and depth information”, in: Information and inference, Springer, 1970, pp. 263–297.
    7. 

  7.  Hodges, 1997 – Hodges, W. A shorter model theory. Cambridge university press, 1997. Mendon ̧ca, 2018 – Mendon ̧ca, B.R. Traditional theory of semantic information without scandal of deduction, PhD Thesis, Unicamp, 2018. http://repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/332305.
    8. 

  8.  Olin, 1978 – Olin, P. “Urn models and categoricity”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1978, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 331–345.
    9. 

  9.  Rantala, 1975 – Rantala, V. “Urn models: a new kind of non-standard model for firstorder logic”, in: Game-Theoretical Semantics, Springer, 1975, pp. 347–366.
    10. 

  10.  Tulenheimo, 2018 – Tulenheimo, T. “Independence friendly logic”, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by E.N. Zalta, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall 2018 edition, 2018.
    11.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate