According to the Ignorance Factivity Thesis, for every proposition p, one is ignorant of p only if p is a truth. By contrast, according to the Ignorance Non-Factivity Thesis, it is false that, for every proposition p, one is ignorant of p only if p is a truth. I argue that, on balance, the case for the latter thesis is stronger than the case for the former.

Given the significant exculpatory power that ignorance has when it comes to moral, legal, and epistemic transgressions, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the concept of ignorance. According to the Standard View of factual ignorance, a person is ignorant that p whenever they do not know that p, while on the New View, a person is ignorant that p whenever they do not truly believe that p. On their own though, neither of these accounts explains how ignorance (...) can often be a degreed notion—how we can sometimes be slightly ignorant, quite ignorant, or completely ignorant that p. In this paper, I will argue that there is a route for advocates of the Standard View and the New View to accommodate the gradability of ignorance. On the view I defend, ‘ignorant’ picks out everyone that is ignorant to some degree, making it possible that ignorance can be both degreed and characterized as a lack of knowledge or true belief. Even though we can be ignorant to a greater or lesser extent, the only way to avoid being ignorant that p is to know or truly believe. (shrink)

In the current debate there are two epistemological approaches to the definition of ignorance. The Standard View defines ignorance simply as not knowing, while the New View defines it as the absence of true belief. We argue that both views provide necessary, but not sufficient conditions for ignorance, and thus do not constitute satisfactory definitions for such a notion.

Vlastos’ famous characterization of the Socratic elenchus focuses on two main aspects of this method: its epistemic roots and its dialogical nature. Our aim is to lay the groundwork to formally capture this characterization. To do so, first, we outline an epistemic framework in which the elenchus can be inscribed. More precisely, we focus our analysis on the passage from unconscious ignorance to conscious (or Socratic) ignorance and provide new insights about the epistemic outcome of an elenctic argument. Secondly, from (...) a logical perspective, we consider the elenchus as a dynamic exchange allowing Socrates’ respondents to revise their beliefs, on pain of inconsistency. By stressing this point, we represent this method as a process of belief revision in dynamic epistemic logic and provide a new logical solution to what Vlastos called the problem of the elenchus. (shrink)

In this paper, we argue that the usual approach to modelling knowledge and belief with the necessity modality |$\Box $| does not produce intuitive outcomes in the framework of the Belnap–Dunn logic (⁠|$\textsf{BD}$|⁠, alias |$\textbf{FDE}$|—first-degree entailment). We then motivate and introduce a nonstandard modality |$\blacksquare $| that formalizes knowledge and belief in |$\textsf{BD}$| and use |$\blacksquare $| to define |$\bullet $| and |$\blacktriangledown $| that formalize the unknown truth and ignorance as not knowing whether, respectively. Moreover, we introduce another modality (...) |$\textbf{I}$| that stands for factive ignorance and show its connection with |$\blacksquare $|⁠. We equip these modalities with Kripke-frame-based semantics and construct a sound and complete analytic cut system for |$\textsf{BD}^{\blacksquare }$| and |$\textsf{BD}^{\textbf{I}}$|—the expansions of |$\textsf{BD}$| with |$\blacksquare $| and |$\textbf{I}$|⁠. In addition, we show that |$\Box $| as it is customarily defined in |$\textsf{BD}$| cannot define any of the introduced modalities, nor, conversely, neither |$\blacksquare $| nor |$\textbf{I}$| can define |$\Box $|⁠. We also demonstrate that |$\blacksquare $| and |$\textbf{I}$| are not interdefinable and establish the definability of several important classes of frames using |$\blacksquare $|⁠. (shrink)

This article investigates the connections between the logics of being wrong, introduced in Steinsvold (2011, Notre Dame J. Form. Log., 52, 245–253), and factive ignorance, presented in Kubyshkina and Petrolo (2021, Synthese, 198, 5917–5928). The first part of the paper provides a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic of factive ignorance that corrects errors in Kubyshkina and Petrolo (2021, Synthese, 198, 5917–5928) and resolves questions about the expressivity of the language. In the second half, it is shown that the (...) relationship between the two logics suggests an alternative axiomatization for the logic of factive ignorance, the adequacy of which is easily proved via straightforward translations. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Kit Fine presents some striking results concerning the logical properties of (first-order) ignorance, second-order ignorance and Rumsfeld ignorance. However, Rumsfeld ignorance is definable in terms of ignorance, which makes some existing results and the axiomatization problem trivial. A main reason is that the accessibility relations for the implicit knowledge operator contained in the packaged operators of ignorance and Rumsfeld ignorance are the same. In this work, we assume the two accessibility relations to be different so that (...) one of them is an arbitrary subset of the other. This will avoid the definability issue and retain most of the previous validities. The main results are axiomatizations over various proper bi-frame classes. Finally we apply our framework to analyze Fine’s results. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce a notion of ‘disjunctive ignorance’, which is a weak combination of two forms of ignorance in the literature. We propose a logical language with ‘disjunctive ignorance’ as a sole modality, explore the logical properties of this notion and its related notions, and axiomatize it over various frame classes. By finding suitable reduction axioms, we extend the results to the case of public announcements and apply it to Moore-like sentences.

In the logical context, ignorance is traditionally defined recurring to epistemic logic. In particular, ignorance is essentially interpreted as “lack of knowledge”. This received view has - as we point out - some problems, in particular we will highlight how it does not allow to express a type of content-theoretic ignorance, i.e. an ignorance of φ that stems from an unfamiliarity with its meaning. Contrarily to this trend, in this paper, we introduce and investigate a modal logic having a primitive (...) epistemic operator I, modeling ignorance. Our modal logic is essentially constructed on the modal logics based on weak Kleene three-valued logic introduced by Segerberg (Theoria, 33(1):53–71, 1997). Such non-classical propositional basis allows to define a Kripke-style semantics with the following, very intuitive, interpretation: a formula φ is ignored by an agent if φ is neither true nor false in every world accessible to the agent. As a consequence of this choice, we obtain a type of content-theoretic notion of ignorance, which is essentially different from the traditional approach. We dub it severe ignorance. We axiomatize, prove completeness and decidability for the logic of reflexive (three-valued) Kripke frames, which we find the most suitable candidate for our novel proposal and, finally, compare our approach with the most traditional one. (shrink)

Neste trabalho discuto a natureza e a estrutura de análise da ignorância proposicional. Meu objetivo é de apontar que, em primeiro lugar, diferentemente de como ao menos duas das principais concepções da epistemologia da ignorância têm pressuposto, a análise da ignorância proposicional não se reduz a estrutura “S é ignorante que P” ou variantes semelhantes a esta estrutura. Ao lerem a ignorância proposicional reduzida em termos de “S é ignorante que P”, essas concepções não fazem a melhor análise da ignorância (...) proposicional. Isto porque, por um lado, geram um problema que se refere a uma possibilidade pouco trabalhada. Trata-se da possibilidade da ignorância sobre proposições falsas e o problema, como será mostrado, é que nessa redução há boas razões tanto para afirmar como para negar essa possibilidade. Isso se constitui, no mínimo, como uma tensão teórica relevante que pode comprometer essas concepções e as análises realizadas a partir delas. Por outro lado, essa redução exclui ao menos um sentido geral e não necessariamente factivo de ignorância proposicional, o que nos priva de uma análise mais adequada da ignorância e de outros temas relacionados. Tendo esse problema e os seus desdobramentos em vista, apontarei, em segundo lugar, para uma hipótese que tem o potencial de dissolvê-lo a partir da reformulação de como compreendemos a ignorância proposicional, herdando as vantagens das razões a favor e das razões contra a possibilidade da ignorância sobre proposições falsas e superando as objeções levantadas contra elas. (shrink)