Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-tr9hg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-11T18:38:14.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE PROBABILISTIC CONVENTION T

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

HANNES LEITGEB
HANNES LEITGEB*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
*
*DEPARTMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY AND MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL 9 WOODLAND ROAD, BRISTOL BS8 1TB, UK E-mail:hannes.leitgeb@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We introduce an epistemic theory of truth according to which the same rational degree of belief is assigned to Tr(┌α┐) and α. It is shown that if epistemic probability measures are only demanded to be finitely additive (but not necessarily σ-additive), then such a theory is consistent even for object languages that contain their own truth predicate. As the proof of this result indicates, the theory can also be interpreted as deriving from a quantitative version of the Revision Theory of Truth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 1 , Special Issue 2: Mathematical Methods in Philosophy , August 2008 , pp. 218 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or Bust? : A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., & Belnap, N. (1993). The Revision Theory of Truth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hailperin, T. (2000). Probability semantics for quantifier logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, P., Paris, J., & Shepherdson, J. (2000). The liar paradox and fuzzy logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65(1), 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbach, V. (1994). A system of complete and consistent truth. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 35, 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzberger, H. G. (1982). Notes on naive semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2001). Theories of truth which have no standard models. Studia Logica, 68(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). How truthlike can a predicate be? A negative result. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 14, 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G., & Leitgeb, H. (to appear). Finitistic and frequentistic approximation of probability measures with or without σ-additivity. Studia Logica.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1935). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen. Studia Philosophica, 1, 261–405.Google Scholar
Werner, D. (2005). Funktionalanalysis. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar