PhilArchive
open access
Logical Omniscience and Acknowledged vs. Consequential Commitments
The purpose of this paper is to consider the explanatory resources that Robert Brandom‟s distinction between acknowledged and consequential commitments affords in relation to the problem of logical omniscience. With this distinction the importance of the doxastic perspective under consideration for the relationship between logic and norms of reasoning is emphasized, and it becomes possible to handle a number of problematic cases discussed in the literature without thereby incurring a commitment to revisionism about logic. 12
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Logical Combinatorialism#697448
- Modal Logic of Indetermination, Decision Theory, and Epistemology: A Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Production through Predication#100001
- The Warsaw School of Logic: Main Pillars, Ideas, Significance#80400
- La brecha: Lógicas «tradicionales» y computacionales en la detección de noticias falsas#179299
- In the name of paraconsistency#107677
Record · ID 757940
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive