more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If two people are arguing 'If p, will q?' and are both in doubt as to p, they are adding p hypothetically to their stock of knowledge, and arguing on that basis about q; ...they are fixing their degrees of belief in q given p.
Gist of Idea
Asking 'If p, will q?' when p is uncertain, then first add p hypothetically to your knowledge
Source
Frank P. Ramsey (Law and Causality [1928], B 155 n)
Book Ref
Ramsey,Frank: 'Philosophical Papers', ed/tr. Mellor,D.H. [CUP 1990], p.155
A Reaction
This has become famous as the 'Ramsey Test'. Bennett emphasises that he is not saying that you should actually believe p - you are just trying it for size. The presupposition approach to conditionals seems attractive. Edgington likes 'degrees'.
| 19232 | In ordinary language a conditional statement assumes that the antecedent is true [Peirce] |
| 14279 | Asking 'If p, will q?' when p is uncertain, then first add p hypothetically to your knowledge [Ramsey] |
| 22432 | Normally conditionals have no truth value; it is the consequent which has a conditional truth value [Quine] |
| 15722 | Conditionals are pointless if the truth value of the antecedent is known [Quine] |
| 14282 | On the supposition view, believe if A,B to the extent that A&B is nearly as likely as A [Edgington] |
| 13854 | Conditionals express what would be the outcome, given some supposition [Edgington] |