Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II XVII
Question/answer/Hintikka: the key to a theory of questions and answers lies in the relation of a question to its exhaustive answer.
Epistemic Logic: epistemic logic provides the solution.
>Epistemic logic.
---
II 18
Questions/answers/Hintikka: the most important application of epistemic logic is a theory of question and answer. E.g.:
(1.1) Who lives here?
Is constructed as:
(1.2) Make that I know who lives here.
II 19
Answer/Hintikka: problem: when does a reply d on a W-question fulfill its purpose? Of course, if it makes the desideratum:
(1.3) "I know who lives here" true.
But what does the answer "d" do? Obviously:
(1.4) I know d lives here.
Answer/Hintikka: the problem is when (1.4.) implies (1.3).
Logical Form: the logical form of (1.3) and (1.4) is
(1.5) (Ex) {I} K (x lives here)
and
(1.6) {I} K (d lives here).
Epistemic Logic/response/quantifier/operator/Hintikka: that is, the operational problem is when (1.6) implies (1.5). It is about the interplay of quantifiers and epistemic operators.
II 19
Knowledge/w-questions/knowing/Hintikka: the right treatment is ensured by a series of steps.
II 20
(i)
Cross-World Identity/Hintikka: cross-world identity must be assumed as solved, so that we can use our quantifiers.
>Cross world identity.
World Line/Hintikka: world lines should connect the counterparts of an individual in different worlds.
>World lines.
If we have a web of world lines (in relation to a subject of knowledge), we have truth conditions for quantified sentences in an epistemic logic of the 1st level.
Truths Conditions: the truth conditions solve Quine's problem here ((s) of the cross-world identity) or transform them into problems how the world lines are to be drawn.
(ii)
Individual Area/individual/existence/possible worlds/Hintikka: it cannot be assumed that the same individuals exist in all models.
When we speak of z as an element of the actual world, we must assume that it exists in this world, so that it has a bona fide value of the quantifiers, which also applies, among others, in the actual world.
II 98
W-questions/who/what/where/Hintikka: thesis: w-questions are nothing but quantified phrases.
II 99
Logical Form:
(1) John knows who the Prime Minister of Norway is.
As a that-construction:
(2) (Ex) John knows that (the Prime Minister of Norway = x) (= de dicto).
Problem: you have to specify the domain of the individual that the variable "x" passes ((s) quotation marks from Hintikka).
II 102
W-Questions/non-existence/Hintikka: variant: problem:
(7) John knows that Homer did not exist.
That is, in any epistemically possible world of John, Homer does not exist. This implies that it makes sense to ask for existence.
>Non-existence.
Uniqueness/existence/Hintikka: i.e. we must distinguish between the existence and the uniqueness (determinateness) of an individual.
Non-existence/Hintikka: non-existence does not make the identity of the individual unknown.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.