Conditionals: Inference and Relevance [Spanish]

Authors

  • Eduardo Rincón Alfonso Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
  • Miguel Ángel Pérez Jiménez Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Bogotá,Colombia)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss three semantic formulations of conditional: material, strict and relevant. Our aim is to show that the relevant conditional shapes our intuitions better than the other two. Since the semantic interpretation of the relevant conditional is an unsettled issue nowadays, we propose a pragmatic interpretation of it. In the first part of the paper we present the criteria to which a theory of conditionals must answer, i.e. the theory must not overgenerate. In the second one, we show that the material and the strict conditionals overgenerate because both lead to paradoxes. In the last part we show that the relevant conditional with a pragmatic interpretation solves the problem of the other conditionals.


Author Biographies

Eduardo Rincón Alfonso, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

Egresado de la carrera de Filosofía de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Actualmente se desempeña como profesor de Filosofía en el Seminario Conciliar de Bogotá y cursa la maestría de Filosofía en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Su investigación actual es acerca de la filosofía del lenguaje y la filosofía de la lógica.

Miguel Ángel Pérez Jiménez, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Bogotá,Colombia)

Doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad de Granada (España). Profesor asociado del Departamento de Filosofía de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Bogotá. Sus líneas de investigación son la filosofía del lenguaje, pura y aplicada, la lógica, la filosofía de la psicología, y autores como Donald Davidson, LudwigWittgenstein y Robert Brandom.

References

<p>Anderson, A. R. y Belnap, N. D. (1975). Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.</p><p><br />Barwise, J. y Etchemendy, J. (2005). Model-theoretic Semantics. En M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science (pp. 207-243). Cambridge: MIT Press.</p><p><br />Beall, Jc., Brady, R., Dunn, J. M., Hazen, A. P., Mares, E., Meyer, R. K. y Sylvan, R. (2012). On the Ternary Relation and Conditionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(3), 595-612. Doi:10.1007/s10992-011-9191-5</p><p><br />Brandom, R. (1994). Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.</p><p><br />Etchemendy, J. (2008). Reflections on Consequence. En D. Patterson (Ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy (pp. 263-269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p><p><br />Etchemendy, J. (1990).The Concept of Logical Consequence. Cambridge: CSLI Publications.</p><p><br />Etchemendy J. (1983). The Doctrine of Logic as Form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(3), 319-334. Doi:10.1007/BF00627480</p><p><br />Frapolli, M. (Sin fecha). The Prosentential Theory of Truth Recuperado de https://www.ugr.es/~frapolli/Antirealismtruth.doc</p><p><br />Frápolli, M. J. (2013).The Nature of Truth: an Updated Approach to the Meaning of Truth Ascriptions. Dordrecht: Springer.</p><p><br />Garson, J. W. (2013). What Logics Mean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p><br />Goodman, N. (1955).Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge: Hardvard University Press.</p><p><br /> Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p><br />Lewis, C., y Langford, C. (1932). Symbolic Logic. Nueva York: Dover.</p><p><br />Liñán, J. (2013). De la conversación a la comunidad: pragmática y semántica en Robert Brandom (Tesis Doctoral). Granada: Universidad de Granada.</p><p><br />Mares, E. D. (2004). Relevant Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p><br />Priest, G. (2008). An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From if to is (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p><br />Priest, G. (2014). Revising Logic. In P. Rush (Ed.), The Metaphysics of Logic (pp. 211-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p><br />Priest, G. (2015a). Is the Ternary R Depraved? In C. Caret y O. T. Hjortland (Eds.) Foundations of Logical Consequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:oso/9780198715696.003.0004</p><p><br />Priest, G. (2015b). Logical Disputes and the a priori Recuperado de http://gelogica.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/6/1/26617550/(priest)_logic_disputes.pdf</p><p><br />Resnik, M. (2004). Revising logic. In G. Priest (Ed.), The Law of Non Contradiction (pp. 178-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p><p><br />Sundholm, G. (2012) ‘Inference versus Consequence' Revisited: Inference, Consequence, Conditional, Implication. Synthese, 187(3): 943-956. Doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-9901-0</p>

Published

2018-04-23

Issue

Section

Articles