Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–12 | Cite as

A logic for factive ignorance

  • Ekaterina KubyshkinaEmail author
  • Mattia Petrolo
Knowing the Unknown
  • 146 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Knowing the Unknown: Philosophical Perspectives on Ignorance

Abstract

In the current debate there are two epistemological approaches to the definition of ignorance: the Standard View and the New View. The former defines ignorance simply as not knowing, while the latter defines it as the absence of true belief. One of the main differences between these two positions lies in rejecting (Standard View) or in accepting (New View) the factivity of ignorance, i.e., if an agent is ignorant of \(\phi \), then \(\phi \) is true. In the present article, we first provide a criticism of the Standard View in favour of the New View. Secondly, we propose a formal setting to represent the notion of factive ignorance.

Keywords

Factive ignorance Agnoiology Epistemic logic Ignorance representation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees of Synthese, Paul Égré, David Gilbert and Giorgio Venturi for useful comments on the material of this paper. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) through the Project Auxílio à Pesquisa—Jovem Pesquisador No. 2016/25891-3. The work of Ekaterina Kubyshkina is supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), Grant 2018/25501-6. The work of Mattia Petrolo is partly supported by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) through the project Universal/Faixa A, No. 433781/2018-1.

References

  1. Beaver, D. I., & Geurts, B. (2011). Presupposition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter edition 2014), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition/.Google Scholar
  2. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B. (2008). Dynamic epistemic logic. Springer, Synthese library.Google Scholar
  3. Driver, J. (1989). The virtues of ignorance. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(7), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferrier, J. F. (1856). Institutes of Metaphysic: The Theory of Knowing and Being. Reprinted in edited form in James Frederick Ferrier: Selected Writings, ed. Jennifer Keefe (Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic, 2011), 157.Google Scholar
  5. Fields, H. (1994). Moral beliefs and blameworthiness. Philosophy, 69(4), 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, D. R., & Venturi, G. (2016). Reflexive insensitive modal logics. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(1), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goldman, A. I., & Olsson, E. J. (2009). Reliabilism and the value of knowledge. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic value (pp. 19–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guerrero, A. A. (2007). Don’t know, don’t kill: Moral ignorance, culpability, and caution. Philosophical Studies, 136(1), 59–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hintikka, J. (1961). Modality and quantification. Theoria, 27, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hintikka, J. (1963). The modes of modality. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 65–82.Google Scholar
  14. van der Hoek, W., & Lomuscio, A. (2004). A logic for ignorance. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 85(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humberstone, L. (2013). Zolin and Pizzi: Defining necessity from noncontigency. Erkenntnis, 78(6), 1275–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 143–173). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  17. Langendoen, D. T., & Savin, H. B. (1971). The projection problem for propositions. In C. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 54–60). New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston.Google Scholar
  18. Le Morvan, P. (2011). On ignorance: A reply to peels. Philosophia, 39(2), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Morvan, P. (2012). On ignorance: A vindication of the standard view. Philosophia, 40(2), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Morvan, P. (2013). Why the standard conception of ignorance prevails. Philosophia, 41(1), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Morvan, P., & Peels, R. (2016). The nature of ignorance: Two views. In R. Peels & M. Blaauw (Eds.), The epistemic dimensions of ignorance (pp. 12–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Peels, R. (2010). What is ignorance? Philosophia, 38(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peels, R. (2011). Ignorance is lack of true belief: A rejoinder to Le Morvan. Philosophia, 39(2), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peels, R. (2012). The new view on ignorance undefeated. Philosophia, 40(4), 741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinsvold, C. (2008). A note on logics of ignorance and borders. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 49(4), 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Woudenberg, R. (2009). Ignorance and force: Two excusing conditions for false beliefs. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46(4), 373–86.Google Scholar
  28. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Zimmerman, M. J. (1988). An essay on moral responsibility. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science (CLE)University of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Center of Natural and Human Sciences (CCNH)Federal University of ABC (UFABC)São Bernardo do CampoBrazil

Personalised recommendations