This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 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 Hajek will present Chapter 5 (which is his stu ff anyway!). Introductions? Welcome Graham Priest! Tomorrow . HPLMS, here at 6pm. Graham: Intentionality and Non-Existence Grice, Jackson, and the horseshoe ( ) analysis of the indicative ( ) The Or-to-If 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 truth-functional sentential operator. Truth-tables: p q p q p _ q p p & q 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 truth-functionally equivalent to p _ q [and to p p & q q ]. The second row of the truth-table 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. Its the other rows of the truth-table 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 Or-to-If Inference (OTI) [Take 1] Bennett begins chapter 2 with Jacksons 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 didnt 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....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 08/01/2008 for the course PHIL 290 taught by Professor Fitelson during the Fall '06 term at University of California, Berkeley.
- Fall '06