, Volume 191, Issue 14, pp 3351–3366 | Cite as

Idealization, epistemic logic, and epistemology

  • Audrey Yap


Many criticisms of epistemic logic have centered around its use of devices such as idealized knowers with logical omniscience and perfect self-knowledge. One possible response to such criticisms is to say that these idealizations are normative devices, and that epistemic logic tells us how agents ought to behave. This paper will take a different approach, treating epistemic logic as descriptive, and drawing the analogy between its formal models and idealized scientific models on that basis. Treating it as descriptive matches the way in which some philosophers, including one of its founders, Jaako Hintikka, have thought about epistemic logic early in its history. Further, the analogy between the two fields will give us a way to defuse criticisms that see epistemic logic as unrealistic. For example, criticizing models of epistemic logic in which agents know all propositional tautologies as being unrealistic would be like criticizing frictionless planes in physics for being unrealistic. Each one would certainly be an unsuitable model for studying some kinds of phenomena, but is entirely appropriate for others. After outlining the analogy between epistemic and scientific models, we will discuss some ways in which idealizations are used by different research programs in epistemic logic.


Epistemic Logic Epistemology Idealization Logic  Philosophy of logic 


  1. Aucher, G. (2010). An internal version of epistemic logic. Studia Logica, 94(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colyvan, M. (2012). Idealisations in normative models. Synthese, 190, 1337–350.Google Scholar
  3. de Bruin, B. (2008). Epistemic logic and epistemology. In V. F. Hendricks & D. Pritchard (Eds.), New Waves in Epistemology (pp. 106–136). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Feldman, R. (1988). Epistemic obligations. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frigg, R. (2010). Models and fiction. Synthese, 172(2), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Girle, R. (1998). Logical fiction: Real vs. ideal. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 153(1), 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gochet, P. & Gribomont, P. (2006). Epistemic logic. In Dov M. Gabbay & John Woods, (Eds.), Handbook of the History of Logic, (vol. 7, pp. 99–195). North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies, 143, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hendricks, V., & Symons, J. (2006). Where’s the bridge? epistemology and epistemic logic. Philosophical Studies, 128, 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hocutt, M. (1972). Is epistemic logic possible? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, XII, I (4), 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lemmon, E., & Henderson, G. (1959). Is there only one correct system of modal logic? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 33, 23–56.Google Scholar
  13. Liu, F. (2009). Diversity of agents and their interaction. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 18(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McLane, E. (1979). On the possibility of epistemic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, XX(3), 559–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moore, R. C. (1985). Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 25, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pincock, C. (2011). Modeling reality. Synthese, 180, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Shafer, G. (1990). Perspectives on the theory and practice of belief functions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 4, 323–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sim, K. M. (1997). Epistemic logic and logical omniscience: A survey. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 12(1), 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Benthem, J. (2006). Epistemic logic and epistemology: The state of their affairs. Philosophical Studies, 128, 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2004). Diversity of logical agents in games. Philosophia Scientiae, 8(2), 165–181.Google Scholar
  22. Velazquez-Quesada, F. R. (2009). Inference and update. Synthese, 169(2):283–300.Google Scholar
  23. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.Google Scholar
  24. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Williamson, T. (2012). Gettier cases in epistemic logic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations