David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
History and Philosophy of Logic 13 (1):43-58 (1992)
In modern times the so?called consequentia mirabilis (if not-P, then P). then P) was first enthusiastically applied and commented upon by Cardano (1570) and Clavius (1574). Of later passages where it occurs Saccheri?s use (1697) has drawn a good deal of attention. It is less known that about the middle of the 17th century this remarkable mode of arguing became the subject of an interesting debate, in which the Belgian mathematician Andreas Tacquet and Christiaan Huygens were the main representatives of opposite views concerning its probative force. In this article the several phases and moves of that debate are delineated
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
W. C. Kneale (1962). The Development of Logic. Oxford University Press.
Jan Łukasiewicz (1957). Aristotle's Syllogistic From the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. Garland Pub..
Jan Łukasiewicz (1970). Selected Works. Amsterdam,North-Holland Pub. Co..
Günther Patzig (1969). Aristotle's Theory of the Syllogism. Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
William Kneale (1957). Aristotle and the Consequentia Mirabilis. Journal of Hellenic Studies 77:62.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Veber (2012). “People Who Argue Ad Hominem Are Jerks” and Other Self-Fulfilling Fallacies. Argumentation 26 (2):201-212.
Similar books and articles
Cyril F. A. Hoormann (1976). A Further Examination of Saccheri's Use of the ``Consequentia Mirabilis''. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 17 (2):239-247.
Nicholas Jolley (1990). The Light of the Soul: Theories of Ideas in Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes. Oxford University Press.
Gabriel Nuchelmans (1994). Can a Mental Proposition Change its Truth‐Value? Some 17th-Century Views. History and Philosophy of Logic 15 (1):69-84.
Ann Elizabeth Fowler La Berge (2004). Debate as Scientific Practice in Nineteenth-Century Paris: The Controversy Over the Microscope. Perspectives on Science 12 (4):424-453.
Mohd Hazim Shah (2007). The Rise of Paradigmatic Monism and Its Cultural Implications. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 7:81-86.
Lia Formigari (1988). Language and Experience in 17th-Century British Philosophy. John Benjamins Pub. Co..
Martin V. Curd (1982). The Rationality of the Copernican Revolution. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:3 - 13.
Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino, Ontological Tensions in 16th and 17th Century Chemistry: Between Mechanism and Vitalism.
Raia Prokhovnik (2004). Spinoza and Republicanism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ahmet Ulvi Türkbağ (2007). From the Evening of the East to the Dawn of the West. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 10:107-115.
Elliott Sober & E. Sober (2007). Sex Ratio Theory, Ancient and Modern: An Eighteenth-Century Debate About Intelligent Design and the Development of Models in Evolutionary Biology. In Jessica Riskin (ed.), Genesis Redux: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Artificial Life. University of Chicago Press 131--62.
Martin Hollis (1973). The Light of Reason: Rationalist Philosophers of the 17th Century. London,Fontana.
Andrew Pyle (2003). Malebranche. Routledge.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads16 ( #251,037 of 2,217,443 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #294,737 of 2,217,443 )
How can I increase my downloads?