Against preservation
Bradley (2000) offers a quick and convincing argument that no Boolean semantic theory for conditionals can validate a very natural principle concerning the relationship between credences and conditionals. We argue that Bradley’s principle, Preservation, is, in fact, invalid; its appeal arises from t...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press (OUP)
2020
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125751 |
| _version_ | 1826215201443151872 |
|---|---|
| author | Mandelkern, Matthew Khoo, Justin Donald |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Mandelkern, Matthew Khoo, Justin Donald |
| author_sort | Mandelkern, Matthew |
| collection | MIT |
| description | Bradley (2000) offers a quick and convincing argument that no Boolean semantic theory for conditionals can validate a very natural principle concerning the relationship between credences and conditionals. We argue that Bradley’s principle, Preservation, is, in fact, invalid; its appeal arises from the validity of a nearby, but distinct, principle, which we call Local Preservation, and which Boolean semantic theories can non-trivially validate. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T16:18:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/125751 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T16:18:54Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1257512024-06-25T18:27:33Z Against preservation Mandelkern, Matthew Khoo, Justin Donald Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Bradley (2000) offers a quick and convincing argument that no Boolean semantic theory for conditionals can validate a very natural principle concerning the relationship between credences and conditionals. We argue that Bradley’s principle, Preservation, is, in fact, invalid; its appeal arises from the validity of a nearby, but distinct, principle, which we call Local Preservation, and which Boolean semantic theories can non-trivially validate. 2020-06-09T20:21:12Z 2020-06-09T20:21:12Z 2019-07 2018-07 2019-11-05T16:15:28Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle 1467-8284 https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125751 Mandelkern, Matthew, and Justin Khoo, "Against preservation." Analysis 79, 3 (July 2019): p. 424-36 doi 10.1093/ANALYS/ANY051 ©2019 Author(s) en 10.1093/ANALYS/ANY051 Analysis Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ application/pdf Oxford University Press (OUP) Other repository |
| spellingShingle | Mandelkern, Matthew Khoo, Justin Donald Against preservation |
| title | Against preservation |
| title_full | Against preservation |
| title_fullStr | Against preservation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Against preservation |
| title_short | Against preservation |
| title_sort | against preservation |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125751 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mandelkernmatthew againstpreservation AT khoojustindonald againstpreservation |