Abstract
The structural view of rational acceptance is a commitment to developing a logical calculus to express rationally accepted propositions sufficient to represent valid argument forms constructed from rationally accepted formulas. This essay argues for this project by observing that a satisfactory solution to the lottery paradox and the paradox of the preface calls for a theory that both (i) offers the facilities to represent accepting less than certain propositions within an interpreted artificial language and (ii) provides a logical calculus of rationally accepted formulas that preserves rational acceptance under consequence. The essay explores the merit and scope of the structural view by observing that some limitations to a recent framework advanced James Hawthorne and Luc Bovens are traced to their framework satisfying the first of these two conditions but not the second.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Church (1944) Introduction to Mathematical Logic Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ
R. Foley (1992) ArticleTitle‘The Epistemology of Belief and the Epistemology of Degrees of Belief’ American Philosophical Quarterly 29 111–121
J. Hawthorne L. Bovens (1999) ArticleTitle‘The Preface, the Lottery, and the Logic of Belief’ Mind 108 241–264 Occurrence Handle10.1093/mind/108.430.241
H.E. Kyburg (1961) Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief Wesleyan University Press Middletown
H.E. Kyburg SuffixJr (1997) ArticleTitle‘The Rule of Adjunction and Rational Inference’ Journal of Philosophy 94 109–125
D.C. Makinson (1965) ArticleTitle‘The Paradox of the Preface’ Analysis 25 205–207
J.L. Pollock (1993) ArticleTitle‘Justification and Defeat’ Artificial Intelligence 67 377–407
F.P. Ramsey (1931) The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays Humanities Press New York
L. Savage (1972) Foundations of Statistics Dover New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wheeler, G.R. On The Structure of Rational Acceptance: Comments on Hawthorne and Bovens. Synthese 144, 287–304 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-2722-2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-2722-2