Federico Pailos

El relativismo acerca de las atribuciones de conocimiento de John MarFarlane pretende ser una teoría que explica la corrección de las intuiciones centrales que tenemos acerca de ellas. Sin embargo, el relativismo es incompatible con la corrección de algunas intuiciones que tenemos con respecto a casos de Stanley, a conjunciones de estos casos y a casos en los que la situación práctica del evaluador es menos apremiante que la del sujeto o la del emisor de la atribución. Esto, no obstante, no señala un límite a las posibilidades del relativismo, sino que insta a dar versiones más sofisticadas del mismo. MarFarlane's relativism about knowledge attributions aspires to be a theory that explains why the central intuitions about them are correct. Nevertheless, relativism is incompatible with the accuracy of some intuitions about Stanley's cases, with conjunctions of them and with intuitions about cases in which there is less at stake from the assessor than what is at stake from the subject or the attributor. Nevertheless, this doesn't establish a limit to the possibilities of relativism, but calls for an improvement of it

The main thesis of this work is as follows: there are versions of Yablo’s paradox that, if Cook is right about the non-circular character of his version of it, are truly paradoxical and genuinely non-circular, and Cook’s version of Yablo’s paradox is one of them. Here I will not evaluate the"circular" or"non-circular" side to Cook’s proposal. In fact, I think that he is right about it, and that his version of Yablo’s list is non-circular. But is it paradoxical? In order to be so, the principles that lead to (i) the derivation of a contradiction, or (ii) the impossibility to give a stable assignment of truth values to the relevant set of sentences, must be acceptable. I will explore two ways to argue that they are not. I will conclude that these attempts lead to a very narrow conception of a theory of truth, or to deny that a paradigmatic case of paradox, such as the"Old-Fashioned Liar," is truly paradoxical. La tesis principal de este trabajo es la siguiente: hay versiones de la paradoja de Yablo tales que, si Cook está en lo cierto acerca del carácter no-circular de su propia versión de ella, son genuinamente paradójicas y auténticamente no-circulares, y la versión de Cook en cuestión es una de ellas. Aquí no voy a evaluar su carácter circular o no-circular. Creo, de hecho, que Cook está en lo correcto sobre el punto. Pero, ¿es su versión auténticamente paradójica? Para que lo fuera, los principios que llevan a (i) derivar una contradicción, o (ii) la imposibilidad de dar una asignación de valores de verdad estables al conjunto relevante de oraciones, deben ser aceptables. Voy a explorar dos modos de argumentar que no lo son. voy a concluir que estos intentos llevan a una concepción de la teoría de la verdad muy estrecha, o a negar que un caso paradigmático de paradoja, como el"mentiroso Tradicional", sea auténticamente paradójica

Recently, it has been observed that the usual type-theoretic restrictions are not enough to block certain paradoxes involving two or more predicates. In particular, when we have a self-referential language containing modal predicates, new paradoxes might appear even if there are type restrictions for the principles governing those predicates. In this article we consider two type-theoretic solutions to multimodal paradoxes. The first one adds types for each of the modal predicates. We argue that there are a number of problems with most versions of this approach. The second one, which we favour, represents modal notions by using the truth predicate together with the corresponding modal operator. This way of doing things is not only useful because it avoids multimodal paradoxes, but also because it preserves the expressive capacity of the language. As an example of the sort of theory we have in mind, we provide a type-theoretic axiomatization that combines truth with necessity and knowledge

Theories where truth is a naive concept fall under the following dilemma: either the theory is subject to Curry’s Paradox, which engenders triviality, or the theory is not trivial but the resulting conditional is too weak. In this paper we explore a number of theories which arguably do not fall under this dilemma. In these theories the conditional is characterized in terms of non-deterministic matrices. These non-deterministic theories are similar to infinitely-valued Łukasiewicz logic in that they are consistent and their conditionals are quite strong. The difference is the following: while Łukasiewicz logic is \-inconsistent, the non-deterministic theories might turn out to be \-consistent

Las teorías relativistas acerca de las atribuciones de conocimiento sostienen que el valor de verdad de una atribución de conocimiento está determinado por el contexto de evaluación de la atribución. Me ocuparé de dos de las principales críticas que se le han formulado al relativismo. Por un lado, Jason Stanley niega que el relativismo pueda dar cuenta de la factividad del conocimiento. Por otra parte, Manuel García Carpintero sostiene que el relativismo se compromete con una inaceptable imagen sobre las normas que rigen la práctica asertiva. Responderé ambas objeciones. Presentaré primero un modo de dar cuenta de la factividad no evaluado por Stanley. La respuesta a García Carpintero, por su parte, supondrá distinguir en qué sentido la verdad es, y en que otro no es, una norma de la aserción.Relativist’s theories about knowledge attributions maintain that the truth value of such assertions is partially fixed by the assessment context. I will answer two of the main objections that it has received. On the one side, Jason Stanley denies that relativism can explain the factivity of knowledge. On the other side, Manuel García Carpintero believes that relativism is commited to an unacceptable picture of assertion. The answer to Stanley’s objection involves a way of explaining factivity that he has not evaluated. The answer to García Carpintero involves distinguishing in what way truth is, and in what way it isn’t, a norm of assertion