Question-relative knowledge for minimally rational agents

References

• Anderson, A., and N. Belnap. 1975. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity I. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berto, F. 2022. Topics of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berto, F., and P. Hawke. 2021. “Knowability Relative to Information.” Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 130 (517): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berto, F., and M. Jago. 2019. Impossible Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berto, F., and M. Jago. 2023. “Impossible Worlds.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impossible-worlds/.
   Google Scholar
• Bjerring, J. C. 2013. “Impossible Worlds and Logical Omniscience: An Impossibility Result.” Synthese 190 (13): 2505–2524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0038-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjerring, J. C., and M. Skipper. 2019. “A Dynamic Solution to the Problem of Logical Omniscience.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (3): 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-018-9473-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjerring, J. C., and M. Skipper. Forthcoming. “Hyperintensionality and Topicality: Remarks on Berto's Topics of Thought.” Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anad077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen. 2019. Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Everett, A. 1993. “A Note on Priest's ‘Hypercontradictions’.” Logique et Analyse 36:39–43.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, K. 2020. “Yablo on Subject-matter.” Philosophical Studies 177 (1): 129–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1183-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, Kit. 2021. “Constructing the impossible.” In Conditionals, Paradox, and Probability: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington, edited by Lee Walters and John Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University press.
   Google Scholar
• Gioulatou, I. 2016. “Hyperintensionality.” Master's thesis, Master of Logic at the University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, G. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawke, P. 2018. “Theories of Aboutness.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4): 697–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2017.1388826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawke, P., A. Özgün, and F. Berto. 2020. “The Fundamental Problem of Logical Omniscience.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 49 (4): 727–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09536-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hintikka, J. 1975. “Impossible Possible Worlds Vindicated.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 4 (4): 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00558761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoek, D. 2022. “Questions in Action.” Journal of Philosophy 119 (3): 113–143. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil202211938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoek, D. Forthcoming. “Minimal Rationality and the Web of Questions.” In Unstructured Content, edited by D. Kindermann, P. van Elswyk, A. Egan, and C. D. Kirk-Giannini. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jago, M. 2007. “Hintikka and Cresswell on Logical Omniscience.” Logic and Logical Philosophy 15:325–354. https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2006.019.
   Google Scholar
• Jago, M. 2009. “Logical Information and Epistemic Space.” Synthese 167:327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9411-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jago, M. 2014. The Impossible: An Essay in Hyperintensionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Konolige, K. 1986. A Deduction Model of Belief. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
   Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. 1982. “Logic for Equivocators.” Noûs 16 (3): 431–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. 1988. “Relevant Implication.” Theoria 54 (3): 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.1988.54.issue-3.
   Google Scholar
• Nolan, D. 1997. “Impossible Worlds: A Modest Approach.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38 (4): 535–572. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1039540769.
   Google Scholar
• Plebani, M., and G. Spolaore. 2021. “Subject Matter: A Modest Proposal.” The Philosophical Quarterly 71 (3): 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqaa054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 1998. “What is so Bad About Contradictions.” Journal of Philosophy 95 (8): 410–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/2564636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2005. Towards Non-being: The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soames, S. 2010. What is Meaning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Inwagen, P. 1986. “Two Concepts of Possible Worlds.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XI, edited by T. Uehling, and H. Wettstein, 185–213. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yablo, S. 2014. Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yablo, S. 2018. “Reply to Fine on Aboutness.” Philosophical Studies 175 (6): 1495–1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0922-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yalcin, S. 2018. “Belief as Question-Sensitive.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97 (1): 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.2018.97.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar