Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–20 | Cite as

Psychophysiological approach to the Liar paradox: Jean Buridan’s virtual entailment principle put to the test

  • Konrad RudnickiEmail author
  • Piotr Łukowski
S.I.: Varieties of Entailment

Abstract

This article presents an empirical examination of the consequences of the virtual entailment principle proposed by Jean Buridan to resolve the Liar paradox. This principle states that every sentence in natural language implicitly asserts its own truth. Adopting this principle means that the Liar sentence is not paradoxical but false, because its content is contradictory to what is virtually implied. As a result, humans should perceive the Liar sentence the same way as any other false sentence. This solution to the Liar paradox received criticism for making ad hoc claims about the natural language. However, thanks to modern advancements in psychophysiology, it became possible to empirically investigate if the human brain really perceives the Liar sentence like a false sentence. We designed and conducted an experiment to examine brain activity in response to true sentences, false sentences and self-referential sentences (including the Liar and the Truthteller). Our results provide support for the Buridan’s hypothesis and show that the Liar sentence is processed by the human brain identically to false sentences, while the Truthteller sentence is perceived identically to true sentences. This agrees with predictions derived from the virtual entailment principle and supports the idea that humans think with the logic of truth—a logic for which the truth is a designated value of its adequate semantics.

Keywords

Liar paradox Jean Buridan Entailment Relativism ERP N400 Experimental philosophy Neurophilosophy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Hanna Bednarek (Department of Cognitive Psychology, SWPS University, Warsaw) who helped us with obtaining the approval of the Ethical Committee for the experiment, and Professor Aneta Brzezicka (Department of Psychophysiology of Cognitive Processes, SWPS University, Warsaw) who allowed us to use the EEG laboratory.

References

  1. Benétreau-Dupin, Y. (2015). Buridan’s solution to the liar paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic, 36(1), 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloom, S. L., & Suszko, R. (1972). Investigations into the sentential calculus with identity. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 13(3), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom, S. L., & Suszko, R. (1975). Ultraproducts of SCI models. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 4(1), 9–12.Google Scholar
  4. Buridan, J. (2001). Summulae de Dialectica. Trans. G. Klima. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Descartes, R. (1984). Fourth meditation. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds. and Trans.), The philosophical writings of Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641).Google Scholar
  7. Dudschig, C., Maienborn, C., & Kaup, B. (2016). Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing. Brain and Cognition, 103, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glanzberg, M. (2001). The liar in context. Philosophical Studies, 103(3), 217–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glanzberg, M. (2004). A contextual–hierarchical approach to truth and the liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33(1), 27–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, G. E. (1985). John Buridan on self-reference: Chapter eight of Buridan’s sophismata: With a translation, an introduction, and a philosophical commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hyvärinen, A., & Oja, E. (2000). Independent component analysis: Algorithms and applications. Neural Networks, 13(4–5), 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klima, G. (2018). The medieval liar. Speculum, 93(1), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lefebvre, N., & Schehlein, M. (2005). The Liar Lied. Philosophy Now, 51, 12–15.Google Scholar
  17. Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Łukowski, P. (2011). Paradoxes. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, R. L. (1984). Recent essays on truth and the liar paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Marques, J. F., Canessa, N., & Cappa, S. (2009). Neural differences in the processing of true and false sentences: Insights into the nature of ‘truth’ in language comprehension. Cortex, 45(6), 759–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. S. (1933). IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 231(694–706), 289–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prior, A. N. (1961). On a family of paradoxes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 2(1), 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rahman, S., Tulenheimo, T., & Genot, E. (Eds.). (2008). Unity, truth and the liar: The modern relevance of medieval solutions to the liar paradox. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Read, S. (2002). The liar paradox from John Buridan back to Thomas Bradwardine. Vivarium, 40(2), 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Read, S. (2006). Symmetry and paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic, 27(4), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sagi, G. (2017). Contextualism, relativism and the liar. Erkenntnis, 82(4), 913–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sauerland, U., & Stateva, P. (Eds.). (2007). Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Simmons, K. (1993). Universality and the liar: An essay on truth and the diagonal argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simmons, K. (2015). Paradox, repetition, revenge. Topoi, 34(1), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spinoza, B. (1982). The ethics and selected letters (Trans. S. Shirley). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1677).Google Scholar
  33. Stigler, S. (2008). Fisher and the 5% level. Chance, 21(4), 12–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uckelman, S. L. (2012). Arthur prior and medieval logic. Synthese, 188(3), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiswede, D., Koranyi, N., Müller, F., Langner, O., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woleński, J. (1993). Samozwrotnośćíi odrzucanie (Self reference and rejecting). Filozofia Nauki, 1(1), 89–102.Google Scholar
  37. Wyatt, J., & Lynch, M. (2016). From one to many: Recent work on truth. American Philosophical Quarterly, 53(4), 323–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication ScienceUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Logic and Methodology of Science, Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of ŁódźLodzPoland

Personalised recommendations