True clauses and false connections

Krzyżanowska, Karolina; Collins, Peter; Hahn, Ulrike

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2021.104252

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This way of defending RH against the counterexamples, like (4) or ( 5), falls short in light of the results of the recent experiments presented in Krzyżanowska, Collins, and Hahn (2021). The results strongly suggest that conditionals with true antecedents and consequents are judged as true by natural language users when their arguments are connected.…”

Section: Counterexamples To the Relevance Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 75%

The Ramsey Test and Evidential Support Theory

Sikorski

2022

J of Log Lang and Inf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ramsey Test is considered to be the default test for the acceptability of indicative conditionals. I will argue that it is incompatible with some of the recent developments in conceptualizing conditionals, namely the growing empirical evidence for the Relevance Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, one of the necessary conditions of acceptability for an indicative conditional is its antecedent being positively probabilistically relevant for the consequent. The source of the idea is Evidential Support Theory presented in Douven ( 2008). I will defend the hypothesis against alleged counterexamples, and show that is it supported by growing empirical evidence. Finally, I will present a version of the Ramsey test which incorporates the relevance condition and therefore is consistent with growing empirical evidence for the relevance hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Counterexamples To the Relevance Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 75%

The Ramsey Test and Evidential Support Theory

Sikorski

2022

J of Log Lang and Inf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the ambiguous results can be explained by a variety of factors (Skovgaard-Olsen et al, 2016; and studies specifically comparing the two conditional theories provide support for inferentialism (Mirabile & Douven, 2020, p. 26;Skovgaard-Olsen et al, 2019;Krzyżanowska et al, 2021;Nickerson et al, 2019, pp. 61f;Krzyżanowska & Douven, 2018;Douven, Elqayam and Mirabile 2022b).…”

Section: Conditional Theory For Abductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a theory of abduction based on conditionals

Pfister

2022

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abduction is considered the most powerful, but also the most controversially discussed type of inference. Based on an analysis of Peirce’s retroduction, Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation and other theories, a new theory of abduction is proposed. It considers abduction not as intrinsically explanatory but as intrinsically conditional: for a given fact, abduction allows one to infer a fact that implies it. There are three types of abduction: Selective abduction selects an already known conditional whose consequent is the given fact and infers that its antecedent is true. Conditional-creative abduction creates a new conditional in which the given fact is the consequent and a defined fact is the antecedent that implies the given fact. Propositional-conditional-creative abduction assumes that the given fact is implied by a hitherto undefined fact and thus creates a new conditional with a new proposition as antecedent. The execution of abductive inferences is specified by theory-specific patterns. Each pattern consists of a set of rules for both generating and justifying abductive conclusions and covers the complete inference process. Consequently, abductive inferences can be formalised iff the whole pattern can be formalised. The empirical consistency of the proposed theory is demonstrated by a case study of Semmelweis' research on puerperal fever.

show abstract

“…Cruz et al [13] and Skovgaard-Olsen et al [76] report data in support of CS. On the other hand, data reported in Douven [15], Douven et al [23], Krzyżanowska et al [40] go against CS. Finally, Skovgaard-Olsen et al [75] found that some of their participants tended to respond in line with CS while other participants' responses violated the principle.…”

Section: Inferentialismmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…For further evidence, see Krzyżanowska et al [40], Vidal and Baratgin [91], Krzyżanowska and Douven [41], Stewart et al ( 2021), Douven et al [18], and Rostworowski et al [68]. 21 What does inferentialism entail for (EQ) and for the triviality result that threatens it?…”

Section: Inferentialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Williamson’s Abductive Case for the Material Conditional Account

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Suppose and Tell, Williamson makes a new and original attempt to defend the material conditional account of indicative conditionals. His overarching argument is that this account offers the best explanation of the data concerning how people evaluate and use such conditionals. We argue that Williamson overlooks several important alternative explanations, some of which appear to explain the relevant data at least as well as, or even better than, the material conditional account does. Along the way, we also show that Williamson errs at important junctures about what exactly the relevant data are.

show abstract

True clauses and false connections

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

The Ramsey Test and Evidential Support Theory

The Ramsey Test and Evidential Support Theory

Towards a theory of abduction based on conditionals

Williamson’s Abductive Case for the Material Conditional Account

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About