Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Harman  would concede that (1)–(3) are inconsistent, and (as a result) that something is wrong with premises (1)–(3). But, he would reject the relevantists’ diagnosis that (1) must be rejected. I take it he’d say it’s (2) that is to blame here. (2) is a bridge principle  linking entailment and inference. (2) is correct only for consistent B’s. [Even if B is consistent, the correct response may rather be to reject some Bi’s in B.].|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Thomas Hofweber (2007). Validity, Paradox, and the Ideal of Deductive Logic. In J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth G. Ferguson (2003). Monotonicity in Practical Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (3):335-346.
Jan Dejnožka (2010). The Concept of Relevance and the Logic Diagram Tradition. Logica Universalis 4 (1):67-135.
Dale Jacquette (2006). An Elementary Deductive Logic Exercise. Teaching Philosophy 29 (1):45-52.
Nicholas Rescher, Reductio Ad Absurdum. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
D. S. Clarke (1973). Deductive Logic. Carbondale,Southern Illinois University Press.
G. B. Keene (1995). The Psychology-Logic Overlap. Behavior and Philosophy 23 (2):57 - 62.
Gilbert Harman (2009). Field on the Normative Role of Logic. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt3):333 - 335.
W. J. Blok & J. Rebagliato (2003). Algebraic Semantics for Deductive Systems. Studia Logica 74 (1-2):153 - 180.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,406 of 740,428 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?