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 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 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 truthfunctionally equivalent to p _ q [and to p p & q 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. Its 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 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 theanalysis, 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
 FITELSON
 Philosophy

Click to edit the document details