The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Brandom’s Account of Reasoning Nonmonotonic, But Does Not Allow Entitlement Recovery

Brandom’s Account of Reasoning Nonmonotonic, But Does Not Allow Entitlement Recovery
Brandom’s Account of Reasoning Nonmonotonic, But Does Not Allow Entitlement Recovery
In most everyday instances of reasoning, reasoners can gain, lose, and reacquire entitlement to (or justification for) a possible commitment (or belief) as a result of their consecutively acquiring new commitments. For example, we might initially conclude that ‘Tweety can fly’ from ‘Tweety is a bird,’ but later have to reject this conclusion as a result of our coming to learn that Tweety is a penguin. We could, even later, reacquire entitlement to ‘Tweety can fly’ if we became committed (and presumably entitled) to the claim ‘Tweety has a jetpack.’ I will call this very common feature of reasoning entitlement recovery. In this paper I will argue that the types of inferential relations that are central to Brandom’s entire account of language and reasoning make entitlement recovery impossible. I will then briefly attempt to diagnose why this problem arises for Brandom and suggest how his account should be modified so that it will successfully allow entitlement recovery.
defeasible logic, inferentialism, Non-monotonicity, epistemic norms, assertion, Uncertainty, Robert Brandom, Philosophy of language
1053-8364
129-150
Schaefer, Reiner
6fe601a0-3db8-4151-8754-87c4547b08eb
Schaefer, Reiner
6fe601a0-3db8-4151-8754-87c4547b08eb

Schaefer, Reiner (2016) Brandom’s Account of Reasoning Nonmonotonic, But Does Not Allow Entitlement Recovery. Journal of Philosophical Research, 41, 129-150. (doi:10.5840/jpr201663073).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In most everyday instances of reasoning, reasoners can gain, lose, and reacquire entitlement to (or justification for) a possible commitment (or belief) as a result of their consecutively acquiring new commitments. For example, we might initially conclude that ‘Tweety can fly’ from ‘Tweety is a bird,’ but later have to reject this conclusion as a result of our coming to learn that Tweety is a penguin. We could, even later, reacquire entitlement to ‘Tweety can fly’ if we became committed (and presumably entitled) to the claim ‘Tweety has a jetpack.’ I will call this very common feature of reasoning entitlement recovery. In this paper I will argue that the types of inferential relations that are central to Brandom’s entire account of language and reasoning make entitlement recovery impossible. I will then briefly attempt to diagnose why this problem arises for Brandom and suggest how his account should be modified so that it will successfully allow entitlement recovery.

Text
jpr_2016_0999_6_30_73 - Accepted Manuscript
Download (200kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 July 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 1 July 2016
Keywords: defeasible logic, inferentialism, Non-monotonicity, epistemic norms, assertion, Uncertainty, Robert Brandom, Philosophy of language

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 455656
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/455656
ISSN: 1053-8364
PURE UUID: 980c21f8-639e-4097-8dcd-b7d1e11eaf03

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 30 Mar 2022 16:36
Last modified: 30 Mar 2022 16:36

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×