条件概率、连言概率与缺漏真值表

发布时间：2018-06-03 20:47

本文选题：条件句概率 + 缺漏真值表　；参考：《逻辑学研究》2017年01期

【摘要】：心理学家很早就开始研究指示条件句的语意论,这近十几年来更试图从指示条件句的概率着手,再回头来看看什么样的语意论最能够解释实验数据。从这些实验中出现了三个显著的结果:第一、大多数的人认为指示条件句的概率等于条件概率;第二、为数不少的人认为指示条件句的概率等于其前件与后件为真的连言概率;第三、大多数的人对指示条件句的真假值看法采取缺漏真值表。前两个结果对心理学家造成极大的难题,为何会出现这样的结果?有没有一个统一的语意论能去解释它?心理学家们几乎全在辩护条件概率者的看法才是正确的,并试图提出条件概率者背后的心理机制,并在此基础上试图解释为何连言概率者会犯错。然而,笔者会在本文论证这个方向是错误的;本文主张我们应该从另一个方向来解释条件概率和连言概率说法之间的关联。笔者认为解套的关键在于缺漏真值表,笔者建议从这个心理学很早就发现的重要结果出发,试图发展出一个三值语意论,比较有机会帮助心理学家解决这个难题。笔者给出两个理由来捍卫这个立场,首先,贫乏性结果已指出条件概率不可能是指示条件句为真的概率;再者,笔者会说明刘吉宴提出的三值语意论如何帮助心理学家们解决这个问题。(刘吉宴,2014)最后笔者得出结论,连言概率说法比条件概率说法更为可信。
[Abstract]:Psychologists have been studying the semantic theory of demonstrative conditional sentences for a long time. In recent years, they have tried to start with the probability of demonstrative conditional sentences, and then look back at what semantic theory can best explain the experimental data. From these experiments, there are three remarkable results: first, most people think that the probability of demonstrative conditional sentence is equal to conditional probability; second, a large number of people think that the probability of demonstrative conditional sentence is equal to the probability of its former and posterior parts. Thirdly, most people adopt the missing truth table for the true and false value of the demonstrative conditional sentence. The first two results pose a great problem for psychologists. Why is this the result? Is there a unified theory of meaning that can explain it? Psychologists almost always argue that the conditional probability is correct, and try to put forward the psychological mechanism behind the conditional probability, and on this basis, try to explain why the probabilities of even words make mistakes. However, the author will argue in this paper that this direction is wrong; this paper argues that we should explain the relationship between conditional probability and concatenation probability from another direction. The author thinks that the key to unlocking lies in the missing truth table. The author suggests that starting from the important result discovered early in this psychology, try to develop a ternary semantic theory, which has the opportunity to help psychologists solve this problem. The author gives two reasons to defend this position. First, the paucity result has pointed out that conditional probability cannot be the probability that the indicator conditional sentence is true. I will explain how Liu Ji's ternary semantic theory helps psychologists solve this problem. (Liu Ji Banquet 2014) at last, the author concludes that the theory of continuous probability is more reliable than conditional probability.
【作者单位】：京都大学大学院文学研究科哲学研究室;
【分类号】：O211.9

【相似文献】