Show simple item record

Common Knowledge, Common Attitudes and Social Reasoning

dc.contributor.authorThomason, Richmond H.
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-20T06:26:00Z
dc.date.available2021-08-20T06:26:00Z
dc.date.issued2021-06-30
dc.identifier.issn0138-0680
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/38702
dc.description.abstractFor as long as there have been theories about common knowledge, they have been exposed to a certain amount of skepticism. Recent more sophisticated arguments question whether agents can acquire common attitudes and whether they are needed in social reasoning. I argue that this skepticism arises from assumptions about practical reasoning that, considered in themselves, are at worst implausible and at best controversial. A proper approach to the acquisition of attitudes and their deployment in decision making leaves room for common attitudes. Postulating them is no worse off than similar idealizations that are usefully made in logic and economics.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBulletin of the Section of Logic;2en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
dc.subjectcommon knowledgeen
dc.subjectbeliefen
dc.subjectnonmonotonic logicen
dc.subjectpractical reasoningen
dc.titleCommon Knowledge, Common Attitudes and Social Reasoningen
dc.typeOther
dc.page.number229-247
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of Michigan, Philosophy Department, 2251 Angell Hall, 48109-1003 Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen
dc.identifier.eissn2449-836X
dc.references[1] R. J. Aumann, Agreeing to Disagree, Annals of Statistics, vol. 4(6) (1976), pp. 1236-1239, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176343654en
dc.references[2] S. Bucheli, R. Kuznets, T. Studer, Justifications for Common Knowledge, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, vol. 21(1) (2011), pp. 35-60, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3166/jancl.21.35-60en
dc.references[3] H. H. Clark, C. R. Marshall, Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge, [in:] A. Joshi, B. Webber, I. Sag (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1981), pp. 10-63.en
dc.references[4] H. H. Clark, M. Schober, Understanding by Addressees and Overhearers, Cognitive Psychology, vol. 21(2) (1989), pp. 211-232.en
dc.references[5] M. A. Dummett, Wang's Paradox, [in:] R. Keefe, P. Smith (eds.), Vagueness: A Reader, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1997), pp. 99-118.en
dc.references[6] J. Geanakoplos, Common Knowledge, [in:] R. Aumann, S. Hart (eds.), Handbook of Game Theory, with Economic Applications, chap. 40, vol. 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1994), pp. 1437-1496, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0005(05)80072-4en
dc.references[7] P. N. Johnson-Laird, Mutual Ignorance: Comments on Clark and Carlson's Paper, [in:] Mutual Knowledge, Academic Press, London (1982), pp. 40-45.en
dc.references[8] H. Lederman, Common Knowledge, [in:] M. Jankovic, K. Ludwig (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality, Routledge, New York (2017), pp. 181-195.en
dc.references[9] H. Lederman, Uncommon Knowledge, Mind, vol. 127(508) (2017), pp. 1069-1105, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw072en
dc.references[10] H. Lederman, Two Paradoxes of Common Knowledge: Coordinated Attack and Electronic Mail, Noûs, vol. 52(4) (2018), pp. 921-945, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12186en
dc.references[11] D. K. Lewis, Convention: A Philosophical Study, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1969), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470693711en
dc.references[12] V. Lifschitz, Circumscriptive Theories: A Logic-Based Framework for Knowledge Representation, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 17(3) (1988), pp. 391-441, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00297512en
dc.references[13] M. Merritt, G. Taubenfeld, Knowledge in Shared Memory Systems, Distributed Computing Archive, vol. 7 (1991), pp. 99-109, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02280839en
dc.references[14] S. Morris, H. S. Shin, Approximate Common Knowledge and Co-ordination: Recent Lessons from Game Theory, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, vol. 6(2) (1997), pp. 171-190, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008270519000en
dc.references[15] D. G. Novick, K. Ward, Mutual Beliefs of Multiple Conversants: a Computational Model of Collaboration in Air Traffic Control, [in:] R. Fikes, W. Lehnert (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California (1993), pp. 196-201.en
dc.references[16] P. Panangaden, K. Taylor, Concurrent Common Knowledge: Defining Agreement for Asynchronous Systems, Distributed Computing, vol. 6(2) (1992), pp. 73-94, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02252679en
dc.references[17] C. Paternotte, The Fragility of Common Knowledge, Erkenntnis, vol. 82 (2017), pp. 451-472, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9828-4en
dc.references[18] A. Rubinstein, The Electronic Mail Game: Strategic Behavior Under 'Almost Common Knowledge', American Economic Review, vol. 79(3) (1989), pp. 385-391.en
dc.references[19] S. Schiffer, Meaning, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1972).en
dc.references[20] S. Schiffer, Remnants of Meaning, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1987).en
dc.references[21] H. A. Simon, Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment, Psychologicial Review, vol. 63(2) (1956), pp. 129-138, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769en
dc.references[22] D. Sperber, D. Wilson, Mutual Knowledge and Relevance in Theories of Comprehension, [in:] N. Smith (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, Academic Press, London (1982), pp. 61-85.en
dc.references[23] D. Sperber, D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 1st ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1986).en
dc.references[24] D. Sperber, D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford (1995).en
dc.references[25] R. Stalnaker, Common Ground, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 25(5-6) (2002), pp. 701-721, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1020867916902en
dc.references[26] R. H. Thomason, The Multiplicity of Belief and Desire, [in:] M. P. Georgeff, A. Lansky (eds.), Reasoning about Actions and Plans, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, California (1987), pp. 341-360.en
dc.references[27] R. H. Thomason, Propagating Epistemic Coordination Through Mutual Defaults I, [in:] R. Parikh (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the Third Conference (TARK 1990), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, California (1990), pp. 29-39, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5555/1027014.1027022en
dc.references[28] R. H. Thomason, Modeling the Beliefs of Other Agents, [in:] J. Minker (ed.), Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000), pp. 375-473, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1567-8_17en
dc.references[29] R. H. Thomason, The Beliefs of Other Agents (2001), http://web.eecs.umich.edu/_rthomaso/documents/nmk/otheragents.pdfen
dc.references[30] R. H. Thomason, Belief, Intention, and Practicality: Loosening Up Agents and Their Propositional Attitudes, [in:] F. Lihoreau, M. Rebuschi (eds.), Epistemology, Context, Formalism, Springer Verlag, Berlin (2013), pp. 167-184, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02943-6_10en
dc.references[31] B. C. van Fraassen, Representation of Conditional Probabilities, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 5(3) (1976), pp. 417-430, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00649400en
dc.contributor.authorEmailrthomaso@umich.edu
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/0138-0680.2021.04
dc.relation.volume50


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
7205-Article_Text-24928-4-10-2 ...
Size:
403.6Kb
Format:
PDF
View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0