“Assertion and Denial, Commitment and Entitlement, and Incompatibility (and some consequence),” to appear in Logical Studies, a new journal published by the Institute for Logic and Cognition at Sun Yat-Sen University
In this short paper, I compare and contrast the kind of symmetricalist treatment of negation favoured in different ways by Huw Price (in “Why ‘Not’?”) and by me (in “Multiple Conclusions”) with Robert Brandom’s analysis of scorekeeping in terms of commitment, entitlement and incompatibility. Both kinds of account provide a way to distinguish the inferential significance of “A” and “A is warranted” in terms of a subtler analysis of our practices: on the one hand, we assert as well as deny; on the other, by distingushing downstream commitments from upstream entitlements and the incompatibility definable in terms of these. In this note I will examine the connections between these different approaches.
Typo in the link to this paper (“adcei.pdf”, instead of “acdei.pdf”).
Posted by: Buzz Borchardt at August 14, 2004 02:47 AM