The problem of basic deductive inference
| Abstract | Knowledge can be transmitted by a valid deductive inference. If I know that p, and I know that if p then q, then I can infer that q, and I can thereby come to know that q. What feature of a valid deductive inference enables it to transmit knowledge? In some cases, it is a proof of validity that grounds the transmission of knowledge. If the subject can prove that her inference follows a valid rule, then her inference transmits knowledge. However, this only pushes the question back to the inference that was made in this proof. What feature of that inference enables it to transmit knowledge? A vicious regress looms here. Every proof requires a valid inference, and every valid inference must follow at least one rule of inference. So every proof must follow at least one rule of inference. Therefore not every valid inference that transmits knowledge can acquire this power through a proof, on pain of vicious infinite regress. So it must be possible to transmit knowledge by making an inference that follows an underived rule. A deductive inference that follows an underived rule is what I will call a basic deductive inference. It must be possible to transmit knowledge by making a basic deductive inference. But how is this possible? What feature of a basic deductive inference gives it this power to transmit knowledge? | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesRobert C. Cummins (1992). Cross Domain Inference and Problem Embedding. In Robert E. Cummins & John L. Pollock (eds.), Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface. MIT Press.
Michael Detlefsen (1992). Poincaré Against the Logicians. Synthese 90 (3):349 - 378.
Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y. Halpern & Moshe Y. Vardi (1992). What is an Inference Rule? Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (3):1018-1045.
Brian Lightbody & Berman Michael (2010). The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 30 (2):185-193.
Ernest Sosa (1981). Epistemology Today: A Perspective in Retrospect. Philosophical Studies 40 (3):309 - 332.
Carlo Cellucci (2006). The Question Hume Didn't Ask: Why Should We Accept Deductive Inferences? In Carlo Cellucci & Paolo Pecere (eds.), Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Reasoning in Mathematics and Natural Science, pp. 137-165. Edizioni dell'Università di Cassino.
Peter Pagin (2012). Assertion, Inference, and Consequence. Synthese 187 (3):869-885.
P. D. Magnus (2008). Demonstrative Induction and the Skeleton of Inference. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):303 – 315.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads63 ( #14,717 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,205 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
