Synthese

, Volume 167, Issue 2, pp 231–249 | Cite as

Reasoning about data and information

Abstraction between states and commodities
Article

Abstract

Cognitive states as well as cognitive commodities play central though distinct roles in our epistemological theories. By being attentive to how a difference in their roles affects our way of referring to them, we can undoubtedly accrue our understanding of the structure and functioning of our main epistemological theories. In this paper we propose an analysis of the dichotomy between states and commodities in terms of the method of abstraction, and more specifically by means of infomorphisms between different ways to classify states of information, information-bases, and evidential situations.

Keywords

Data Information Information flow Method of abstraction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allo P. (2008) The no information without data-representation principle. In: Brey P., Briggle A., Waelbers K.(eds) Current issues in computing and philosophy. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 79–90Google Scholar
  2. Arlo Costa, H., & Parikh, R. (2006). Tracking truth: Knowledge and conditionals in the context of branching time. Formal Epistemology Workshop.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise J. (1988) Three views of common knowledge. Pacific Grove, California: TARK IIGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwise J., Seligman J. (1997) Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Beall J.C., Restall G. (2006) Logical pluralism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Devlin K. (2006) Situation theory and situation semantics. In: Gabbay D.M., Woods J.(eds) Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 7): Logic and the modalities in the twentieth century.. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 601–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dretske F. (1999) Knowledge and the flow of information. Stanford, CSLIGoogle Scholar
  8. Fagin R., Halpern J.Y., Moses Y., Vardi M.Y. (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Floridi L. (2004) On the logical insolvability of the Gettier problem. Synthese 142(2): 61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Floridi, L. (2005). Semantic conceptions of information. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of information. Stanford.Google Scholar
  11. Floridi L., Sanders J.W. (2004) Levellism and the method of abstraction, information ethics group. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Fodor J. (1987) Psychosemantics. The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Israel D., Perry J. (1990) What is information. In: Hanson P.(eds) Information, language and cognition.. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  14. Kratzer A. (2002) Facts: Particulars or information units?. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5): 655–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roush S. (2005) Tracking truth. Knowledge, evidence, and science. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Russell, G. K. (2008). One true logic? Journal of Philosophical Logic (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  17. Stalnaker R. (1991) The problem of logical omniscience, I. Synthese 89(3): 425–440 (Also reprinted in Stalnaker (1999))CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stalnaker R. (1999) Context and content. Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. van Benthem J. (2006) Epistemic logic and epistemology: The state of their affairs. Philosophical Studies 128(1): 49–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.IEGOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations