The Logic of Knowledge and the Flow of Information

Abstract

In this paper I look at Fred Dretske’s account of information and knowledge as developed in Knowledge and The Flow of Information. In particular, I translate Dretske’s probabilistic definition of information to a modal logical framework and subsequently use this to explicate the conception of information and its flow which is central to his account, including the notions of channel conditions and relevant alternatives. Some key products of this task are an analysis of the issue of information closure and an investigation into some of the logical properties of Dretske’s account of information flow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although the k variable which occurs in Dretske’s definition relativises information to what the receiver already knows concerning the possibilities at the source, this relativisation is only meant to accommodate the way information is thought about, that the information one can get from a signal depends on what they already know; it does not undermine the essential objectivity of information.

  2. 2.

    This idea of channel conditions/relevant alternatives will be explored more in section "Information Closure". There is no determinate method to decide what counts and what does not count as a relevant alternative. In general the selection will depend upon the knowing agent and their environment and will also be a pragmatic decision. Particularly due to this lack of clear determination the notion of relevant alternatives has been a point of philosophical contention and from one point of view its application is seen to be somewhat ad hoc. Nonetheless, it is a valuable idea that can serve as a foundation for accounts that afford a flexible way to realistically talk about information (and knowledge).

  3. 3.

    A precis of Knowledge and the Flow of Information plus some commentaries can be found in Dretske (1983).

  4. 4.

    Technically there are some exceptions involving formulas with a probability of zero and hence undefined calculations. With monotonicity, Pr(p|p) = 1 [\(p \sqsupset p\)] but \(\hbox{Pr}(p | p \wedge \neg p)\) is undefined [not \((p \wedge \neg p) \sqsupset p\)]. With Reverse Disjunction, \(\hbox{Pr}(p | p \vee (q \wedge \neg q)) = 1\) [\((p \vee (q \wedge \neg q)) \sqsupset p\)] but \(\hbox{Pr}(p | q \wedge \neg q)\) is undefined [not \((q \wedge \neg q) \sqsupset p\)].

  5. 5.

    The account given by C&M is itself quite problematic, with one reason being that properties of a counterfactual conditional discord too much with properties commonly associated with information flow. If an account of information is to abandon the universality of these properties, it could at least offer some accommodation by delineating the restricted applicability of these properties and account for why they are linked to an ordinary conception of information flow. Demir (2011) recently pointed a problematic consequence of the counterfactual theory of information that arguably makes it untenable. He shows that given the standard possible worlds account of counterfactuals, according to C&M’s definition “‘A carries information that B’ necessarily implies ‘A carries information that B and C’ for any C such that the closest not-C world is more remote than the closest not-B world".

  6. 6.

    The reflexivity property also gives us other desirable validities which would not hold without it. For example, if A carries the information that B carries the information that C, then A and B together carry the information that \(C: \,\square(A \supset \square(B \supset C)) \vdash \square((A \wedge B) \supset C)\)

  7. 7.

    Other clearly problematic results follow from further additions. For example, adding the zoological truth \(\square_{1}(Pa \supset \neg Fa)\) leads to the problematic \(\square_{2}(Pa \supset \neg Ba). \)

  8. 8.

    Perhaps expressed more clearly with the equivalent: \(\diamondsuit_{2}Pa \supset \neg \square_{2}(Ba \supset Fa)\)

  9. 9.

    Regarding \(\square_{1}, \,\square_{1}(Ba \supset Fa)\) is illegitimate and leads to the incorrect \(\square_{1}(Pa \supset \neg Pa). \,\square_{1}(Ba \wedge Pa \supset \neg Fa)\) is derivable in the system so the addition of \(\square_{1}(Ba \wedge Pa \supset Fa)\) would lead to the unacceptable \(\neg \diamondsuit_{1}(Ba \wedge Pa) \vee \diamondsuit_{1}(Fa \wedge \neg Fa). \) Hence \(\square_{1}(Ba \wedge Pa \supset Fa)\) is also illegitimate.

  10. 10.

    Perhaps in less practical discourse, a catch-all clause C could act as a stand-in of sorts, such that \(\square(A \supset B) \supset \square \neg C. \)

  11. 11.

    See Luper (2010) for an overview.

  12. 12.

    \(\rightarrow\) is being used here as a general representation of an implication/conditional

  13. 13.

    This is sometimes talked about in terms of nearby possible worlds

  14. 14.

    This is further evidenced by a subsequent case that Shackel makes, according to which, Dretske is committed to closure for a modified version of closure, a general closure principle for signalled information.

  15. 15.

    On a related note, another part of Dretske’s account which would need to be revised is information nesting as mentioned in section “Dretske on Information and Knowledge”:

    \(\ldots\) if a signal carries the information that s is F, it also carries all the information nested in s’s being \(F.\, \ldots\)

    $$ \hbox{The information that }t\hbox{ is }G\hbox{ is nested in }s'\hbox{s being }F = s'\hbox{s being }F\hbox{ carries the information that }t\hbox{ is }G.\hbox{ ( Dretske 1981, p. 71)} $$

    He also distinguishes between information that is analytically nested and information that is nomically nested. As the zebra-mule example shows, caution must be exercised with nesting and its applicability regulated, for although ‘not-mule’ is necessarily implied by ‘zebra’, the information that ‘not-mule’ is not necessarily analytically nested in the information that ‘zebra’.

  16. 16.

    Heller (1999) offers a good explication of Dretske’s type of relevant alternatives account that answers opponent contextualists such as Stine.

  17. 17.

    As suggested by an anonymous referee, perhaps a better name for Dretske’s view would be ‘situationism’, since it relies only on objective features of the epistemic agent’s situation and not on contexts of discourse and such.

  18. 18.

    Kripke presented this and some other examples at an APA session in the early 1980s. An extensive published critique of Nozick’s account, including discussion of the red barn example, can be found in Kripke (2011).

  19. 19.

    Dretske (2003, p. 117) briefly discusses this example and offers the case for why it does not affect his account, even if it affects Nozick’s. Adams (2005, p. 8) offers the case for why Kripke’s example does not undermine Nozick’s or Dretske’s account either.

  20. 20.

    In its full form this statement is an analytic truth. For our purposes this is a simplified version, since if something is an equid it could also be a horse or donkey. Adding these would not affect the argument though, since all the options are mutually exclusive.

  21. 21.

    See Chellas (1980) for a comprehensive look at such systems of non-normal modal logic.

References

  1. Adams, F. (2005). Tracking theories of knowledge. Veritas 50, 1–35, draft available online at http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/veritas/article/viewFile/1813/1343.

  2. Baumann, P. (2006). Information, closure, and knowledge: On jager’s objection to dretske. Erkenntnis, 64, 403–408.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Black, T. (2006). Contextualism in epistemology. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy, july 15, 2006 edn, URL: http://www.iep.utm.edu/contextu/.

  4. Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal logic: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, J., & Meskin, A. (2006). An objective counterfactual theory of information. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(3), 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Collins, J. M (2006). Epistemic closure principles. In: J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy, june 13, 2006 edn, URL: http://www.iep.utm.edu/epis-clo/.

  7. Demir, H. (2011). The counterfactual theory of information revisited. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1–3 (online first).

  8. Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 1007–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dretske, F. (1971). Conclusive reasons. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dretske, F. (1983). Precis of knowledge and the flow of information. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dretske, F. (2003). Skepticism: What perception teaches. In S. Luper (Ed.), The skeptics: contemporary essays (pp. 105–118). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dretske, F. (2004). Externalism and modest contextualism. Erkenntnis, 61, 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dretske, F. (2005). The case against closure. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology. Ontario: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dretske, F. (2006). Information and closure. Erkenntnis, 64, 409–413.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Heller, M. (1999). Relevant alternatives and closure. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77(2), 196–208.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Jager, C. (2004). Skepticism, information, and closure: Dretske’s theory of knowledge. Erkenntnis, 61, 187–201.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Kripke, S. A. (2011). Philosophical troubles. Collected papers Vol I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of knowledge. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Loewer, B. (1983). Information and belief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 75–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Luper, S. (2010). The epistemic closure principle. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2010 edn, Stanford University, URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/closure-epistemic/.

  22. Priest, G. (2003). An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rysiew, P. (2011). Epistemic contextualism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, winter 2011 edn.

  24. Shackel, N. (2006). Shutting dretske’s door. Erkenntnis, 64, 393–401.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Steup, M. (2005). Knowledge and skeptcism. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology. Ontario: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stine, G. C. (1976). Skepticism, relevant alternatives, and deductive closure. Philosophical Studies, 29, 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wobcke, W. (2000). An information-based theory of conditionals. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41, 95–141.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon D’Alfonso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Alfonso, S. The Logic of Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Minds & Machines 24, 307–325 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-013-9310-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dretske
  • Information
  • Knowledge
  • Closure
  • Relevant alternatives