Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 87–112 | Cite as

Probability for the Revision Theory of Truth

  • Catrin Campbell-Moore
  • Leon HorstenEmail author
  • Hannes Leitgeb
Open Access
Article
  • 256 Downloads

Abstract

We investigate how to assign probabilities to sentences that contain a type-free truth predicate. These probability values track how often a sentence is satisfied in transfinite revision sequences, following Gupta and Belnap’s revision theory of truth. This answers an open problem by Leitgeb which asks how one might describe transfinite stages of the revision sequence using such probability functions. We offer a general construction, and explore additional constraints that lead to desirable properties of the resulting probability function. One such property is Leitgeb’s Probabilistic Convention T, which says that the probability of φ equals the probability that φ is true.

Keywords

Liar paradox Semantic paradox Revision theory of truth Probabilistic convention T 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Philip Welch and Johannes Stern for helpful discussions on this topic, as well as anonymous referees for this journal for their helpful suggestions. Catrin Campbell-Moore would also like to thank Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where she was based as a Stipendiary Research Fellow while this paper was being written.

References

  1. 1.
    Benci, V., Di Nasso, M., Forti, M. (2006). An Aristotelian notion of size. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 143(1-3), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benci, V., Horsten, L., Wenmackers, S. (2013). Non-Archimedean probability. Milan Journal of Mathematics, 81(1), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benci, V., Horsten, L., Wenmackers, S. (2018). Infinitesimal probabilities. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69(2).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brickhill, H., & Horsten, L. (2018). Triangulating non-Archimedean probability. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020318000060.
  5. 5.
    Campbell-Moore, C. (2018). Limits in the revision theory: more than just definite verdicts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, this edition.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta, A., & Belnap, N.D. (1993). The revision theory of truth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horsten, L., Leigh, G.E., Leitgeb, H., Welch, P. (2012). Revision revisited. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(4), 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joyce, J. (2009). Accuracy and coherence prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial beliefs. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leitgeb, H. (2008). On the probabilistic convention T. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(02), 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leitgeb, H. (2012). From type-free truth to type-free probability. In Restall, G., & Russel, G. (Eds.) New Waves in philosophical logic (pp. 84–94). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Jeffrey, R. (Ed.) Studies in inductive logic and probability, (Vol. 2 pp. 263–293). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rivello, E. (2015). Periodicity and reflexivity in revision sequences. Studia Logica, 103(6), 1279–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roeper, P., & Leblanc, H. (1999). Probability theory and probability logic. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Welch, P.D. (2014). Some observations on truth hierarchies. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams, J.R.G. (2014). Probability and non-classical logic. In Hitchcock, C., & Hájek, A. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy (pp. 248–276). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catrin Campbell-Moore
    • 1
  • Leon Horsten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hannes Leitgeb
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophyLudwig Maximilians Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations