Branden Fitelson
Philosophy 290 Notes
1
Conditionals Seminar: Day 2
•
Administrative:
–
Stay tuned to course website for announcements
/
readings, etc. [
e.g.
, first 4
chapters of Bennett are there in PDF format, as are some primary sources]
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/
fitelson/conditionals/
– Oct. 5
. Alan H´ajek will present Chapter 5 (which is his stu
ff
anyway!).
–
Introductions? Welcome Graham Priest!
•
Tomorrow
. HPLMS, here at 6pm. Graham: “Intentionality and NonExistence”
•
Grice, Jackson, and the horseshoe (
) analysis of the indicative (
)
–
The OrtoIf Inference [an inference of what kind, and from what to what?]
–
Grice: Conversational Implicature,
, and
–
Jackson: Conventional Implicature,
, and
–
Logic, semantics, pragmatics, epistemology [a big shell game?]
UCB Philosophy
C
2
3
B
09
/
07
/
04
Branden Fitelson
Philosophy 290 Notes
2
Logical Background:
(the horseshoe) and
(the indicative)
•
The horseshoe (
) is a
truthfunctional
sentential operator. Truthtables:
p
q
p
q
p
q
p
&
q
p
q
T
T
T
T
T
?
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
?
F
F
T
T
T
?
•
Note:
p
q
is
truthfunctionally equivalent
to
p
q
[and to
p
&
q
].
•
The second row of the truthtable is uncontroversial. If
p
is true and
q
is false,
then
p
q
is false, and (intuitively) so is the indicative conditional
p
q
.
•
I.e.
, intuitively,
p
q
’s
falsity
entails the
falsity
of
p
q
. Or, equivalently
(in classical logic!),
p
q
’s
truth
entails
p
q
’s
truth
. Most accept this.
•
It’s the
other
rows of the truthtable that are controversial for
p
q
. The
question is: Does
p
q
’s
truth
entail
p
q
’s
truth
? To summarize:
– Unontroversial
:
p
q
p
q
.
Controversial
:
p
q
p
q
.
UCB Philosophy
C
2
3
B
09
/
07
/
04
Branden Fitelson
Philosophy 290 Notes
3
Bennett
§
9: The “OrtoIf” Inference (OTI) [Take 1]
•
Bennett begins chapter 2 with Jackson’s rendition of (OTI). I must
quote
this:
You believed Vladimir when he told you ‘Either they drew or it was a win for
white’; which made it all right for you to tell Natalya ‘If they didn’t draw, it
was a win for white’. That was all right because what Vladimir told you
entailed what you told Natalya. Quite generally:
(1)
P
Q
entails
P
Q
If (1) is correct, then so is the horseshoe analysis, as the following shows
. . . .
•
At this point, Bennett reasons from (1) in a
classical
way, as follows:
(2)
A
C
entails
A
C
[two
substitutions
:
A
/
P
and
C
/
Q
]
(3)
A
C
entails
A
C
[two
equivalences
:
A
C
//
A
C
and
A
//
A
]
•
The ‘Quite generally’ sanctions (2), and classical logic sanctions (3), which
secures the
analysis, since
A
C
A
C
is the controversial direction.
•
Questions:
What
is this argument supposed to show? And,
how
(hint: IBE)?
•
We will come back to these questions when we discuss
§
18 (end of Ch. 3).
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
This is the end of the preview.
Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.
 Fall '06
 FITELSON
 Philosophy, Material conditional, Implicature, Branden Fitelson, UCB Philosophy CHAPTERS, · Bennett, A. Grice

Click to edit the document details