Epistemic Modals in Hypothetical Reasoning

Erkenntnis 88 (8):3551-3581 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Data involving epistemic modals suggest that some classically valid argument forms, such as _reductio_, are invalid in natural language reasoning as they lead to modal collapses. We adduce further data showing that the classical argument forms governing the existential quantifier are similarly defective, as they lead to a _de re–de dicto_ collapse. We observe a similar problem for disjunction. But if the classical argument forms for negation, disjunction and existential quantification are invalid, what are the correct forms that govern the use of these items? Our diagnosis is that epistemic modals interfere with hypothetical reasoning. We present a modal first-order logic and model theory that characterizes hypothetical reasoning with epistemic modals in a principled manner. One upshot is a sound and complete natural deduction system for reasoning with epistemic modals in first-order logic.

Author Profiles

Luca Incurvati
University of Amsterdam
Julian J. Schloeder
University of Connecticut
Maria Aloni
University of Amsterdam

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-03-02

Downloads
339 (#50,547)

6 months
96 (#46,995)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?