Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorBerto, Francesco
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-04T10:30:13Z
dc.date.available2018-09-04T10:30:13Z
dc.date.issued2018-03-13
dc.identifier255688682
dc.identifier69657b85-f09a-4b31-af7f-788312c37231
dc.identifier85043688898
dc.identifier.citationBerto , F 2018 , ' Taming the runabout imagination ticket ' , Synthese , vol. First Online . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1751-6en
dc.identifier.issn0039-7857
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0003-3246-657X/work/48132009
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/15952
dc.descriptionThis research is published within the project ‘The Logic of Conceivability’, funded by the European Research Council (ERC CoG), Grant Number 681404.en
dc.description.abstractThe ‘puzzle of imaginative use’ (Kind and Kung in Knowledge through imagination, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016) asks: given that imagination is arbitrary escape from reality, how can it have any epistemic value? In particular, imagination seems to be logically anarchic, like a runabout inference ticket: one who imagines A may also imagine whatever B pops to one’s mind by free mental association. This paper argues that at least a certain kind of imaginative exercise—reality-oriented mental simulation—is not logically anarchic. Showing this is part of the task of solving the puzzle. Six plausible features of imagination, so understood, are listed. Then a formal semantics is provided, whose patterns of logical validity and invalidity model the six features.
dc.format.extent15
dc.format.extent322257
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofSyntheseen
dc.subjectAboutnessen
dc.subjectCounterfactual thinkingen
dc.subjectEpistemology of imaginationen
dc.subjectMental simulationen
dc.subjectVariably strict epistemic modalsen
dc.subjectB Philosophy (General)en
dc.subjectPhilosophyen
dc.subjectSocial Sciences(all)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subject.lccB1en
dc.titleTaming the runabout imagination ticketen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Philosophyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11229-018-1751-6
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record