University of St Andrews AHCR web site CSMN web site
The Arché Weblog

A plea for information about "actually".

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

I believe that "Actually(p)" is often taken to be a logical consequence of "p". A number of questions:

(a) is this a standard view? Who disagrees? Who agrees?
(b) what are the central papers I should be looking at if I want to think about this claim?
(c) is the claim that this is a logical consequence *argued for* anywhere (as opposed, e.g. to just deriving it in a system where we've laid down a syncategoramic axiom for an actually operator).
(d) does anything philosophically interesting turn on whether or not this is validity?

(The reason I'm interested is that I've recently been thinking about anologies between "determinately" for the supervaluationist and "actually" for the modal logician, and the result above is the analogue of "p|=Def(p)".)

Epistemic Norms

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Does anyone know if the following combination of views has been defended?

1. Epistemically normative statements are made true by/express objective facts
2. These are naturalistically respectable facts (having to do with e.g. truth or probable truth given evidential position etc.)
3. This does not mean epistemically normative statements are equivalent in sense to statements which are explicitly about truth, probable truth etc.

(Cf. the corresponding view in ethics, that moral statements are made true by/express objective facts about e.g. the maximization of utility, but do not have the same sense as statements explicitly about the maximization of utility.)

Any pointers would be much appreciated!