CitedEvidence
User Settings
Article

Logical Omniscience and Acknowledged vs. Consequential Commitments

Niels Skovgaard‐Olsen-2014-01-01-PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)
0

TL;DRAbstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider the explanatory resources that Robert Brandom‟s distinction between acknowledged and consequential commitments affords in relation to the problem of logical omniscience. With this distinction the importance of the doxastic perspective under consideration for the relationship between logic and norms of reasoning is emphasized, and it becomes possible to handle a number of problematic cases discussed in the literature without thereby incurring a commitment to revisionism about logic. 12

Chat with Paper

AI Agents for this Paper

The purpose of this paper is to consider the explanatory resources that Robert Brandom‟s distinction between acknowledged and consequential commitments affords in relation to the problem of logical omniscience. With this distinction the importance of the doxastic perspective under consideration for the relationship between logic and norms of reasoning is emphasized, and it becomes possible to handle a number of problematic cases discussed in the literature without thereby incurring a commitment to revisionism about logic. 12

Keywords

OmniscienceDoxastic logicEpistemologyPerspective (graphical)Relation (database)Logical consequencePhilosophyComputer science

Chat

Click to start Chat