Statements containing epistemic modals (e.g., "by spring 2023 most European countries may have the Covid-19 pandemic under control") are common expressions of epistemic uncertainty. In this paper, previous published findings (Knobe & Yalcin, 2014; Khoo & Phillips, 2018) on the opposition between Contextualism and Relativism for epistemic modals are re-examined. It is found that these findings contain a substantial degree of individual variation. To investigate whether participants differ in their interpretations of epistemic modals, an experiment with multiple phases and sessions is conducted to classify participants according to the three semantic theories of Relativism, Contextualism, and Objectivism. Through this study, some of the first empirical evidence for the kind of truth-value shifts postulated by semantic Relativism is presented. It is furthermore found that participants' disagreement judgments match their truth evaluations and that participants are capable of distinguishing between truth and justification. In a second experimental session, it is investigated whether participants thus classified follow the norm of retraction which Relativism uses to account for argumentation with epistemic modals. Here the results are less favorable for Relativism. In a second experiment, these results are replicated and the normative beliefs of participants concerning the norm of retraction are investigated following work on measuring norms by Bicchieri (2017). Again, it is found that on average participants show no strong preferences concerning the norm of retraction for epistemic modals. Yet, it was found that participants who had committed to Objectivism and had training in logic applied the norm of retraction to might-statements. These results present a substantial challenge to the account of argumentation with epistemic modals presented in MacFarlane (2014), as discussed.

This paper calls for a re-appraisal of McGee’s analysis of the semantics, logic and probabilities of indicative conditionals presented in his 1989 paper Conditional probabilities and compounds of conditionals . The probabilistic measures introduced by McGee are given a new axiomatisation—built on the principle that the antecedent of a conditional is probabilistically independent of the conditional—and a more transparent method of constructing such measures is provided. McGee’s Dutch book argument is restructured to more clearly reveal that it introduces a novel contribution to the epistemology of semantic indeterminacy, and shows that its more controversial implications are unavoidable if we want to maintain the Ramsey Test along with the standard laws of probability. Importantly, it is shown that the counterexamples that have been levelled at McGee’s analysis—generating a rather wide consensus that it yields ‘unintuitive’ or ‘wrong’ probabilities for compounds —fail to strike at their intended target; for to honour the intuitions of the counterexamples one must either give up the Ramsey Test or the standard laws of probability. It will be argued that we need to give up neither if we take the counterexamples as further evidence that the indicative conditional sometimes allows for a non-epistemic ‘causal’ interpretation alongside its usual epistemic interpretation.

A globally expressivist analysis of the indicative conditional based on the Ramsey Test is presented. The analysis is a form of 'global' expressivism in that it supplies acceptance and rejection conditions for all the sentence forming connectives of propositional logic (negation, disjunction, etc.) and so allows the conditional to embed in arbitrarily complex sentences (thus avoiding the Frege-Geach problem). The expressivist framework is semantically characterized in a restrictor semantics due to Vann McGee, and is completely axiomatized in a logic dubbed ICL ('Indicative Conditional Logic'). The expressivist framework extends the AGM (after Alchourron, Gardenfors, Makinson) framework for belief revision and so provides a categorical ('yes'-'no') epistemology for conditionals that complements McGee's probabilistic framework while drawing on the same semantics. The result is an account of the semantics and acceptability conditions of the indicative conditional that fits well with the linguistic data (as pooled by linguists and from psychological experiments) while integrating both expressivist and semanticist perspectives.

This paper is about the statics and dynamics of belief states that are represented by pairs consisting of an agent’s credences (represented by a subjective probability measure) and her categorical beliefs (represented by a set of possible worlds). Regarding the static side, we argue that the latter proposition should be coherent with respect to the probability measure and that its probability should reach a certain threshold value. On the dynamic side, we advocate Jeffrey conditionalisation as the principal mode of changing one’s belief state. This updating method fits the idea of the Lockean Thesis better than plain Bayesian conditionalisation, and it affords a flexible method for adding and withdrawing categorical beliefs. We show that it fails to satisfy the traditional principles of Inclusion and Preservation for belief revision and the principle of Recovery for belief withdrawals, as well as the Levi and Harper identities. We take this to be a problem for the latter principles rather than for the idea of coherent belief change.

Vann McGee has proposed a counterexample to the Ramsey Test. In the counterexample, a seemingly trustworthy source has testified that p and that if not-p, then q. If one subsequently learns not- p (and so learns that the source is wrong about p), then one has reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the source (perhaps even the identity of the source) and so, the argument goes, one has reason to doubt the conditional asserted by the source. Since what one learns is that the antecedent of the conditional holds, these doubts are contrary to the Ramsey Test. We argue that the counterexample fails. It rests on a principle of testimonial dependence that is not applicable when a source hedges his or her claims.

It is argued that truth value of a sentence containing free variables in a context of use (or the truth value of the proposition it expresses in a context of use), just as the reference of the free variables concerned, depends on the assumptions and posits given by the context. However, context may under-determine the reference of a free variable and the truth value of sentences in which it occurs. It is argued that in such cases a free variable has indeterminate reference and a sentence in which it occurs may have indeterminate truth value. On letting, say, x be such that x^2=4 , the sentence ‘Either x=2 or x=-2 ’ is true but the sentence ‘ x=2 ’ has an indeterminate truth value: it is determinate that the variable x refers to either 2 or -2 , but it is indeterminate which of the two it refers to, as a result ‘ x=2 ’ has a truth value but its truth value is indeterminate. The semantic indeterminacy is analysed in a ‘radically’ supervaluational (or plurivaluational ) semantic framework closely analogous to the treatment of vagueness in McGee and McLaughlin (South J Philos 33:203–251, 1994 , Linguist Philos 27:123–136, 2004 ) and Smith (Vagueness and degrees of truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008 ), which saves bivalence, the T-schema and the truth-functional analysis of the boolean connectives. It is shown that on such an analysis the modality ‘determinately’ is quite clearly not an epistemic modality, avoiding a potential objection raised by Williamson (Vagueness, Routledge, London, 1994 ) against such ‘radically’ supervaluational treatments of vagueness, and that determinate truth (rather than truth simpliciter ) is the semantic value preserved in classically valid arguments. The analysis is contrasted with the epistemicist proposal of Breckenridge and Magidor (Philos Stud 158:377–400, 2012 ) which implies that (in the given context) ‘ x=2 ’ has a determinate but unknowable truth value.

The typical function of goals is to regulate action in a way that furthers goal achievement. Goals are typically set on the assumption that they will help bring the agent(s) closer to the desired state of affairs. However, sometimes endorsement of a goal, or the processes by which the goal is set, can obstruct its achievement. When this happens, the goal is self-defeating. Self-defeating goals are common in both private and social decision-making but have not received much attention by decision theorists. In this paper, we investigate different variants of three major types of self-defeating mechanisms: (1) The goal can be an obstacle to its own fulfilment (self-defeating goal endorsement), (2) goal-setting activities can impede goal achievement (self-defeating goal-setting), and (3) disclosure of the goal can interfere with its attainment (self-defeating goal disclosure). Different strategies against self-defeasance are tentatively explored, and their efficiency against different types of self-defeasance is investigated.

It is argued that David Lewis' two triviality results (the probability of the conditional cannot be the conditional probability; desire cannot be belief) both present a potential problem for expressivism, are related, and can both be resolved in the same way: by allowing for gappy propositions (propositions that can lack truth value). In particular, a semantics for 'A is good' is provided that allows one to embrace the major premises leading up to Lewis' triviality result while avoiding its conclusion.

The connectives of classical propositional logic are given an analysis in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions of acceptance and rejection, i.e. the connectives are analyzed within an expressivist bilateral meaning-is-use framework. It is explained how such a framework differs from standard (bilateral) inferentialist frameworks and it is argued that it is better suited to address the particular issues raised by the expressivist thesis that the meaning of a sentence is determined by the mental state that it is conventionally used to express. Furthermore, it is shown that the classical requirements governing the connectives completely characterize classical logic, are conservative (indeed make the connectives redundant) and separable, are in bilateral harmony, are structurally preservative with respect to the classical coordination requirements and resolve the categoricity problem. These results are taken to show that one can give an expressivist bilateral meaning-is-use analysis of the connectives that confer on them a determinate coherent classical interpretation.

It is argued that expressivists can solve their problems in accounting for the unity and autonomy of logic - logic is topic independent and does not derive from a general logic' of mental states - by (1) adopting an analysis of the logical connectives that takes logically complex sentences to express complex combinations of simple attitudes like belief and disapproval and dispositions to form such simple attitudes upon performing suppositional acts, and (2) taking acceptance and rejection of sentences to be the common mental denominator in descriptive and evaluative discourse, and structural requirements governing these to be the basis for logic. Such an account requires that attitudes like belief, intention and disapproval can come in hypothetical mode - plausibly linked to the capacity to mentally simulate or emulate one's own attitudes - and, if correct, suggests that these form the basic building blocks for our capacity to understand logically complex sentences.

This paper provides finitary jointly necessary and sufficient acceptance and rejection conditions for the logical constants of a first order quantificational language. By introducing the notion of making an assignment as a distinct object level practice-something you do with a sentence-(as opposed to a meta-level semantic notion) and combining this with the practice of (hypothetical and categorical) acceptance and rejection and the practice of making suppositions one gains a structure that is sufficiently rich to fully characterize the class of classical first order theories. The analysis thus provides a way of characterizing classical first order quantification by expressivist means.

Decision theory (at least if we omit the frills) is not an esoteric science, however unfamiliar it may seem to an outsider. Rather it is a systematic exposition of the consequences of certain well-chosen platitudes about belief, desire, preference and choice. It is the very core of our common-sense theory of persons, dissected out and elegantly systematized. (David Lewis, Synthese 23:331–344, 1974, p. 337).

An alleged counterexample to causal decision theory, put forward by Andy Egan, is studied in some detail. It is argued that Egan rejects the evaluation of causal decision theory on the basis of a description of the decision situation that is different from-indeed inconsistent with-the description on which causal decision theory makes its evaluation. So the example is not a counterexample to causal decision theory. Nevertheless, the example shows that causal decision theory can recommend unratifiable acts (acts that once decided upon appear sub-optimal) which presents a problem in the dynamics of intentions (as a decision is the forming of an intention to act). It is argued that we can defuse this problem if we hold that decision theory is a theory of rational decision making rather than a theory of rational acts. It is shown how decisions can have epistemic side-effects that are not mediated by the act and that there are cases where one can only bring oneself to perform the best act by updating by imaging rather than by conditioning. This provides a pragmatic argument for updating by imaging rather than by conditioning in these cases.

The paper presents a non-monotonic inference relation on a language containing a conditional that satisfies the Ramsey Test. The logic is a weakening of classical logic and preserves many of the ‘paradoxes of implication’ associated with the material implication. It is argued, however, that once one makes the proper distinction between supposing that something is the case and accepting that it is the case, these ‘paradoxes’ cease to be counterintuitive. A representation theorem is provided where conditionals are given a non-bivalent semantics and epistemic states are represented via preferential models.

Abstract:Conditionals that contain a modality in the consequent give rise to a particular semantic phenomenon whereby the antecedent of the conditional blocks possibilities when interpreting the modality in the consequent. This explains the puzzling logical behaviour of constructions like “If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you can't win”, “If you eat that poison, it is unlikely that you will survive the day” and “If you kill Harry, you ought to kill him gently”. In this paper it is argued that a semantic version of the Ramsey Test provides a key in the analysis of such constructions. The logic for this semantics is axiomatized and some examples are studied, among them a well‐known puzzle for contrary‐to‐duty obligations.

It is argued that the "inner" negation ∼ familiar from 3-valued logic can be interpreted as a form of "conditional" negation: ∼ A is read ' A is false if it has a truth value'. It is argued that this reading squares well with a particular 3-valued interpretation of a conditional that in the literature has been seen as a serious candidate for capturing the truth conditions of the natural language indicative conditional (e.g., "If Jim went to the party he had a good time"). It is shown that the logic induced by the semantics shares many familiar properties with classical negation, but is orthogonal to both intuitionistic and classical negation: it differs from both in validating the inference from A → ∼ B to ∼ A → B .

It is argued that indicative conditionals are best viewed as having truth conditions (and so they are in part factual) but that these truth conditions are ‘gappy’ which leaves an explanatory gap that can only be filled by epistemic considerations (and so indicative conditionals are in part epistemic). This dual nature of indicative conditionals gives reason to rethink the relationship between logic viewed as a descriptive discipline (focusing on semantics) and logic viewed as a discipline with a normative import (focusing on epistemic notions such as ‘reasoning’, ‘beliefs’ and ‘assumptions’). In particular, it is argued that the development of formal models for epistemic states can serve as a starting point for exploring logic when viewed as a normative discipline.

I argue that indicative conditionals are best viewed as having partial truth conditions: “If A, B” is true if A and B are both true, false if A is true and B is false, and lacks truth value if A is false. The truth conditions are shown to explain a variety of important phenomena regarding indicative conditionals, including Adams’ Thesis about the assertability conditions of conditionals, and how indicative conditionals embed in more complex constructions. In particular, the truth conditions are shown to provide the semantic basis for characterising several distinct logics of indicative conditionals, of which the logic of assertion is the main focus of the paper.

A formal model for updates—the result of learning that the world has changed—in a multi-agent setting is presented and completely axiomatized. The model allows that several agents simultaneously are informed of an event in the world in such a way that it becomes common knowledge among the agents that the event has occurred. The model shares many features with the model for common announcements—an announcement about the state of the world in which it becomes common knowledge among the audience that the announcement has been made—presented in Cantwell (2005), but exploits the difference between learning that a state of the world obtains and learning that the state of the world has changed.

Safety factor rules are used for drawing putatively reasonable conclusions from incomplete datasets. The paper attempts to provide answers to four questions: “How are safety factors used?”, “When are safety factors used?”, “Why are safety used?” and “How do safety factor rules relate to decision theory?”. The authors conclude that safety factor rules should be regarded as decision methods rather than as criteria of rightness and that they can be used in both practical and theoretical reasoning. Simplicity of application and inability or unwillingness to defer judgment appear to be important factors in explaining why the rules are used.