@misc{Lexicon of Arguments, title = {Quotation from: Lexicon of Arguments – Concepts - Ed. Martin Schulz, 28 Mar 2024}, author = {Hintikka,Jaakko}, subject = {Situation Semantics}, note = {II XVII Situation Semantics/Barwise/Perry/Hintikka: situation semantics is not so much different than the semantics of possible worlds. Possible Worlds/Hintikka: possible worlds are often more like situations, they are not always closed worlds. They are rather event progresses in a small corner of the universe and related to situations. Difference: alternative situations could occur in one and the same world. >Possible worlds, >Situations. II XVIII Situation Semantics/Hintikka: situation semantics is not a serious rival of the semantics of possible worlds. --- II 206 Situation Semantics/Barwise/Perry/B/P/Hintikka: Barwise's and Perry's situation semantics is a welcome addition to the semantics of possible worlds. >Situation semantics/Barwise/Perry. Situation/Hintikka: an interesting question is how small egocentric situations can be when put together to form a larger comprehensive "world view". Relations: there should be at least three types of relations between situations: 1. spatial, 2. temporal and 3. the distinction between fine-grained and coarse-grained situations. It is best to study these separately. II 207 Situation Semantics/Barwise/Perry/omniscience/Hintikka: how can situation semantics solve the problem of logical omniscience? Barwise/Perry: give the following example: (1) a sees how b X-t therefore (2) a sees how b Y-t If X-en implies logically, to Y-en ((s) e.g. to go, to move). Solution/Barwise/Perry: Barwise and Perry assume that there are richer and poorer situations and relations between them. HintikkaVsBarwise/HintikkaVsSituation Semantics/Hintikka: but this is not a triumph over the semantics of possible worlds, for two reasons: 1. Because it is now about the relation fine/coarse (fine-grained/coarse-grained) which is nothing with which the semantics of possible worlds has to do. 2. The semantics of possible worlds has solved the problem by using Rantala's urn models (changing worlds depending on whether drawn balls are returned or not). Barwise/Perry: Barwise and Perry consider only instances of omniscience, which arise through the introduction of new descriptive terms into the conclusion,... II 208 ...and go beyond what is mentioned in the premises. Hintikka/Rantala: we have both looked at cases which require the introduction of new individuals in order to ensure the validity of the inference. E.g. (3) Robert saw someone giving each boy his own book. (4) Robert saw every boy how a book was given him by someone. Question: does (3) logically entail (4)? Situation Semantics/Barwise/Perry: according to situation semantics, yes it does. Semantics of Possible Worlds/Hintikka: according to semantics of possible worlds it is at least questionable. >Semantics of possible worlds.}, note = { Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 }, file = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=411712} url = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=411712} }