Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:29:27.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Information and Veridicality: Information Processing and the Bar-Hillel/Carnap Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

Floridi’s Theory of Strongly Semantic Information posits the Veridicality Thesis (i.e., information is true). One motivation is that it can serve as a foundation for information-based epistemology being an alternative to the tripartite theory of knowledge. However, the Veridicality thesis is false, if ‘information’ is to play an explanatory role in human cognition. Another motivation is avoiding the so-called Bar-Hillel/Carnap paradox (i.e., any contradiction is maximally informative). But this paradox only seems paradoxical, if (a) ‘information’ and ‘informativeness’ are synonymous, (b) logic is a theory of inference, or (c) validity suffices for rational inference; a, b, and c are false.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

The first author is grateful to Joseph Agassi, Aditya Ghose, and Patrick McGivern for discussions on this topic. Special thanks are due to the anonymous referees for useful critiques and suggestions for improvement. This research has been supported by a fellowship from the Edelstein Centre for the History and Philosophy of Science, Technology and Medicine to the first author as well as a research grant from the Israeli Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption.

References

Adams, Fred. 2003. “The Informational Turn in Philosophy.” Minds and Machines 13 (4): 471501. doi:10.1023/A:1026244616112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Fred 2010. “Information and Knowledge à La Floridi.” Metaphilosophy 41 (3): 331–44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01630.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allo, Patrick. 2010. “A Classical Prejudice?Knowledge, Technology and Policy 23 (1–2): 2540. doi:10.1007/s12130-010-9098-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, and Carnap, Rudolf. 1952. “An Outline of a Theory of Semantic Information.” Technical Report 247, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, and Carnap, Rudolf 1953. “Semantic Information.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (14): 147–57. doi:10.2307/685989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon. 1997. Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Bett, Richard A., ed. 2010. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenhausen, Galen V., and Hugenberg, Kurt. 2009. “Attention, Perception, and Social Cognition.” In Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction, ed. Strack, Fritz and Förster, Jens, 122. Frontiers of Social Psychology. New York: Psychology.Google Scholar
Bradie, Michael. 1986. “Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology.” Biology and Philosophy 1 (4): 401–59. doi:10.1007/BF00140962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiwei. 2002. “Unwanted Beliefs: Age Differences in Beliefs of False Information.” Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 9 (3): 217–30. doi:10.1076/anec.9.3.217.9613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiwei, and Blanchard-Fields, Fredda. 2000. “Unwanted Thought: Age Differences in the Correction of Social Judgments.” Psychology and Aging 15 (3): 475–82. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corlett, Philip, Simons, Jon S., Pigott, Jennifer S., Gardner, Jennifer M., Murray, Graham K., Krystal, John H., and Fletcher, Paul C. 2009. “Illusions and Delusions: Relating Experimentally-Induced False Memories to Anomalous Experiences and Ideas.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 3. doi:10.3389/neuro.08.053.2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodig-Crnkovic, Gordana. 2005. “System Modeling and Information Semantics.” In Promote IT 2005: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference for the Promotion of Research in IT at New Universities and University Colleges in Sweden, ed. Bubenko, Janis. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred I. 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, James H. 2004. “Information: Does It Have to Be True?Minds and Machines 14 (2): 223–29. doi:10.1023/B:MIND.0000021682.61365.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano. 2008. “Understanding Epistemic Relevance.” Erkenntnis 69 (1): 6992. doi:10.1007/s10670-007-9087-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano 2010a. Information: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano 2010b. “The Philosophy of Information: Ten Years Later.” Metaphilosophy 41 (3): 402–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01647.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano 2011. The Philosophy of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, Luciano 2014. “Perception and Testimony as Data Providers.” In Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge, Vol. 34, ed. Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan and Thomas M Dousa, 71–95. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franconeri, Steven L., and Simons, Daniel J. 2003. “Moving and Looming Stimuli Capture Attention.” Perception and Psychophysics 65 (7): 9991010. doi:10.3758/BF03194829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fresco, Nir, Ginsburg, Simona, and Jablonka, Eva. Forthcoming. “The Construction of Learned Information through Selection Processes.” In The Routledge Handbook of Evolution and Philosophy, ed. Richard Joyce. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gettier, Edmund L. 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?Analysis 23 (6): 121–23. doi:10.2307/3326922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Daniel T. 1991. “How Mental Systems Believe.” American Psychologist 46 (2): 107–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Daniel T., Tafarodi, Romin W., and Malone, Patrick S. 1993. “You Can’t Not Believe Everything You Read.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (2): 221–33. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Stephen. 2012. “The Gettier-Illusion: Gettier-Partialism and Infallibilism.” Synthese 188 (2): 217–30. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-9924-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1970. “Information, Deduction, and the A Priori.” Noûs 4 (2): 135–52. doi:10.2307/2214318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, Justine. 2008. “Learning and Selection.” Biology and Philosophy 23 (4): 493507. doi:10.1007/s10539-008-9113-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac. 1967. “Information and Inference.” Synthese 17 (1): 369–91. doi:10.1007/BF00485040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, Donald M. 1969. Information, Mechanism and Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Michaelis. 2008. “Implicit Ontological Commitment.” Philosophical Studies 141 (1): 4361. doi:10.1007/s11098-008-9262-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Michaelis 2013. “Facing Inconsistency: Theories and Our Relations to Them.” Episteme 10 (4): 351–67. doi:10.1017/epi.2013.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mingers, John. 2013. “Prefiguring Floridi’s Theory of Semantic Information.” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism and Critique 11 (2): 388401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öhman, Arne, Flykt, Anders, and Esteves, Francisco. 2001. “Emotion Drives Attention: Detecting the Snake in the Grass.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130 (3): 466–78. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466.Google ScholarPubMed
Peirce, Charles S. 1868. “On a New List of Categories.” In Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 7:287–98. Boston: Metcalf.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1935/1935. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 14th printing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scarantino, Andrea, and Piccinini, Gualtiero. 2010. “Information without Truth.” Metaphilosophy 41 (3): 313–30. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01632.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude Elwood, and Weaver, Warren. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart, ed. 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shope, Robert K. 1983. The Analysis of Knowing: A Decade of Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sneed, Joseph D. 1967. “Entropy, Information, and Decision.” Synthese 17 (1): 392407. doi:10.1007/BF00485041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, Jonathan, Harwood, Rowan, Morton, Ian, and Connelly, David. 2009. Dementia Care: A Practical Manual. Oxford Care Manuals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Marty J. 2011. “Analysis, Clarification and Extension of the Theory of Strongly Semantic Information.” Etica and Politica 13 (2): 246–54.Google Scholar