Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:37:16.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Common Knowledge?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Zachary Ernst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common knowledge is usually defined as a state in which everyone knows that p, everyone knows that everyone knows that p, and so on, ad infinitum. This definition is usually attributed to David Lewis, despite the fact that his own formulation bears no resemblance to common knowledge as it is usually understood. In this paper, I argue that this concept of common knowledge requires revision. Contrary to usual practice, it turns out to be difficult to model formally because existing models fail to distinguish between full-blown common knowledge and merely finite levels of interactive knowledge. Conceptually, the concept is incompatible with Lewis's intended purpose and obscures the explanatory role played by rational choice models. I propose that the concept of common knowledge be brought better into alignment with Lewis's actual formulation. This reconceptualization of common knowledge suggests a greater focus on explanations that make recourse to the cognitive constraints of real-world agents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , October 2011 , pp. 209 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aumann, Robert J. 1999a. “Interactive Epistemology I: Knowledge.” International Journal of Game Theory 28: 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, Robert J. 1999b. “Interactive Epistemology II: Probability.” International Journal of Game Theory 28: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, Ken. 1985. “Equilibria in Extensive Games.” The Economic Journal 95: 51–9.Google Scholar
Binmore, Ken and Samuelson, Larry. 2001. “Coordinated Action in the Electronic Mail Game.” Games and Economic Behavior 35: 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. 1996. “Analyticity Reconsidered.” Noûs 30(3): 360–91.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1975. “On Knowledge and Convention.” The Philosophical Review 84(2): 249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, Ronald, Halpern, Joseph Y., Moses, Yoram, and Vardi, Moshe Y.. 1999. “Common Knowledge Revisited.” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 96(1–3): 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1983. “Notes on the Concept of a Social Convention.” New Literary History 14(2): 225–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop, Ronald. 1958. “On the Existence of Finite Models and Decision Procedures for Propositional Calculi.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 54: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop, Ronald. 1973. “On Simple, Weak and Strong Models of Propositional Calculi.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. 1959. “A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 24(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1966. “Truth by Convention.” In Ways of Paradox. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Vanderschraaf, Peter. 1998. “Knowledge, Equilibrium and Convention.” Erkenntnis 49(3): 337–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar