首页    期刊浏览 2025年07月18日 星期五
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Bilateralism and Probabilism
  • 本地全文:下载
  • 作者:Mariela Rubin
  • 期刊名称:Análisis filosófico
  • 印刷版ISSN:1851-9636
  • 出版年度:2022
  • 卷号:42
  • 期号:1
  • 页码:5-29
  • DOI:10.36446/af.2022.387
  • 语种:Spanish
  • 出版社:Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico
  • 摘要:The aim of this paper is to provide a philosophical interpretation of bilateralism in terms of probabilism. In particular, to interpret the main concepts of bilateralism –acceptance, rejection and incoherence– in terms of the probabilistic notions of degree of belief and coherence. According to bilateralism, the meaning of logical connectives is determined by the acceptance and rejection conditions of the sentences in which they are involved, where acceptance and rejection cannot be reduced to one another. I will focus on a variant of bilateralism that understands logical consequence as the statement that it is incoherent to accept all the premises of a valid argument while rejecting all its conclusions. On the other hand, probabilism states that it is possible to interpret our degrees of belief in terms of probabilities. The aim of this work is then to interpret the concept of incoherence in terms of probability functions and determine when it is coherent to accept or to reject a proposition according to some threshold defined in terms of degrees of belief. To achieve this goal, we need both an interpretation of the concept of incoherence coined by the bilateralists as well as an interpretation of acceptance and rejection. I will show that a good interpretation of coherence in probabilistic terms can already be found in the literature. Then, I will give an interpretation of acceptance and rejection in terms of degrees of belief. In particular, I will show that it is possible to interpret these concepts in accordance with Locke’s thesis, the thesis that states that there is some threshold r such that if you believe some sentence in degree equal or higher than r you should accept it, without falling into epistemic paradoxes.
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有