Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 176, Issue 2, pp 291–309 | Cite as

New surprises for the Ramsey Test

  • Malte WillerEmail author
Article

Abstract

In contemporary discussions of the Ramsey Test for conditionals, it is commonly held that (i) supposing the antecedent of a conditional is adopting a potential state of full belief, and (ii) Modus Ponens is a valid rule of inference. I argue on the basis of Thomason Conditionals (such as ‘If Sally is deceiving, I do not believe it’) and Moore’s Paradox that both claims are wrong. I then develop a double-indexed Update Semantics for conditionals which takes these two results into account while doing justice to the key intuitions underlying the Ramsey Test. The semantics is extended to cover some further phenomena, including the recent observation that epistemic modal operators give rise to something very like, but also very unlike, Moore’s Paradox.

Keywords

Ramsey Test Suppositional reasoning Modus Ponens Update Semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arló Costa H., Levi I. (1986) Two notions of epistemic validity. Synthese 109(2): 217–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver D.I. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett J. (2003) A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalmers D.J., Hájek A. (2007) Ramsey + Moore = God. Analysis 67(2): 170–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edgington D. (1995) On conditionals. Mind 104(414): 235–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuhrmann A. (1989) Reflective modalities and theory change. Synthese 81(1): 115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors P. (1986) Belief revisions and the Ramsey test for conditionals. Philosophical Review 95(1): 81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillies A. (2001) A new solution to Moore’s paradox. Philosophical Studies 105(3): 237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillies A. (2004a) Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs 38(4): 585–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillies A. (2004b) New foundations for epistemic change. Synthese 138(1): 1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillies A. (2006) What might be the case after a change in view. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35(2): 117–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M., Veltman F. (1996) Coreference and modality. In: Lappin S. (eds) Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 179–214Google Scholar
  13. Hansson S.O. (1999) A textbook of belief dynamics: Theory change and database updating. Kluwer Academic Press, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson F. (1987) Conditionals. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Levi I. (1977) Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese 34(4): 423–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levi I. (1980) The enterprise of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Levi I. (1988) Iteration of conditionals and the Ramsey test. Synthese 76(1): 49–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levi I. (1996) For the sake of the argument. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis, D. K. (1986). Postscripts to probability of conditionals and conditional probability. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 152–156). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lowe E. (1987) Not a counterexample to Modus Ponens. Analysis 47(1): 44–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGee V. (1985) A counterexample to Modus Ponens. The Journal of Philosophy 82(9): 462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramsey, F. P. (1990). General propositions and causality. In D. H. Mellor (Ed.), Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–163.Google Scholar
  23. Rott H. (2001) Change, choice and inference. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Shoemaker S. (1995) Moore’s paradox and self-knowledge. Philosophical Studies 77(2-3): 211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sinnott-Armstrong W., Moor J., Fogelin R. (1986) A defense of Modus Ponens. The Journal of Philosophy 83(5): 296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Does J., Groeneveld W., Veltman F. (1997) An update on might. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6(4): 361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Fraassen B. (1980) ‘Review of Brian Ellis, Rational belief systems’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10(3): 497–511Google Scholar
  28. Veltman F. (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3): 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woods, M. (1997). Conditionals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Edited by David Wiggins, with a commentary by Dorothy Edgington.Google Scholar
  30. Yalcin S. (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 16(464): 983–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations