2015Unpublished venueRequires access

On the Plurality of Lewis's Triviality Results

Alan Hájek

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

David Lewis introduced a new kind of reductio ad absurdum style of argument: while the claims, suitably formalized, do not lead to outright contradiction, he showed they are tenable only in trivial ways. Lewis proved what are known as triviality results against the claims. The claims are "Probabilities of conditionals are conditional probabilities." "Desires are beliefs about what is good." The author argues that the tenuous connections between the claims go considerably further still: the claims give rise to debates that display a remarkably parallel structure. He brings out their many similarities to illuminate both of them, and to point the way to some promising avenues for future research. He displays structural similarities between the fluctuating fortunes of Stalnaker's Thesis, and those of Desire-as-Belief. Lewis concludes telegraphically by saying that Desire by Necessity is "a form of anti-Humeanism, sure enough, but not the right form of anti-Humeanism"; and that's it.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

David Lewis introduced a new kind of reductio ad absurdum style of argument: while the claims, suitably formalized, do not lead to outright contradiction, he showed they are tenable only in trivial ways. Lewis proved what are known as triviality results against the claims. The claims are "Probabilities of conditionals are conditional probabilities." "Desires are beliefs about what is good." The author argues that the tenuous connections between the claims go considerably further still: the claims give rise to debates that display a remarkably parallel structure. He brings out their many similarities to illuminate both of them, and to point the way to some promising avenues for future research. He displays structural similarities between the fluctuating fortunes of Stalnaker's Thesis, and those of Desire-as-Belief. Lewis concludes telegraphically by saying that Desire by Necessity is "a form of anti-Humeanism, sure enough, but not the right form of anti-Humeanism"; and that's it.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

David Lewis introduced a new kind of reductio ad absurdum style of argument: while the claims, suitably formalized, do not lead to outright contradiction, he showed they are tenable only in trivial ways. Lewis proved what are known as triviality results against the claims. The claims are "Probabilities of conditionals are conditional probabilities." "Desires are beliefs about what is good." The author argues that the tenuous connections between the claims go considerably further still: the claims give rise to debates that display a remarkably parallel structure. He brings out their many similarities to illuminate both of them, and to point the way to some promising avenues for future research. He displays structural similarities between the fluctuating fortunes of Stalnaker's Thesis, and those of Desire-as-Belief. Lewis concludes telegraphically by saying that Desire by Necessity is "a form of anti-Humeanism, sure enough, but not the right form of anti-Humeanism"; and that's it.

Key concepts: Reductio ad absurdum, Triviality, Argument (complex analysis), Contradiction, Epistemology, Philosophy, Point (geometry), Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
On the Plurality of Lewis's Triviality Results — Research Paper | ScholarLens