David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Implication barrier theses deny that one can derive sentences of one type from sentences of another. Hume’s Law is an implication barrier thesis; it denies that one can derive an ‘ought’ (a normative sentence) from an ‘is’ (a descriptive sentence). Though Hume’s Law is controversial, some barrier theses are philosophical platitudes; in his Lectures on Logical Atomism, Bertrand Russell claims: You can never arrive at a general proposition by inference particular propositions alone. You will always have to have at least one general proposition in your premises. (Russell, 1918, p. 206) We will refer to this claim—that one cannot derive general sentences from particular sentences—as Russell’s Law.1 A third barrier thesis claims that one cannot derive sentences about the future from sentences about the past or present. Hume’s endorsement of this barrier thesis is well-known: all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past . . . if there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any argument from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. (Hume, EHU 4.21/37) We will refer to this barrier thesis as Hume’s Second Law. A fourth barrier thesis says that one cannot derive a necessary sentence from one about the actual world and we will refer to this last thesis Kant’s Law. Such implication barrier theses present a problem.
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gillian Russell & Greg Restall (forthcoming). Barriers to Implication. In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. Palgrave MacMillan
Gillian Russell (2011). Indexicals, Context-Sensitivity and the Failure of Implication. Synthese 183 (2):143 - 160.
Alex Byrne (1999). Subjectivity is No Barrier. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 22 (6):949-950.
Tomasz Bigaj (1997). Uwagi o logice trójwartościowej. Filozofia Nauki 3.
James Morauta (2004). Three Separation Theses. Law and Philosophy 23 (2):111-135.
Lee Mcintyre (1997). Gould on Laws in Biological Science. Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):357-367.
Gillian Russell (forthcoming). In Defence of Hume’s Law. In Charles Pigden (ed.), Hume on Is and Ought. Palgrave MacMillan
Robert Kirk (2006). Physicalism and Strict Implication. Synthese 151 (3):523-536.
Elizabeth Barnes & Ross Cameron (2009). The Open Future: Bivalence, Determinism and Ontology. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):291 - 309.
Alberto Voltolini (2007). Names for Ficta, for Intentionalia, and for Nothing. In María José Frápolli (ed.), Saying, Meaning and Referring: Essays on François Recanati's Philosophy of Language. Palgrave Macmillan 183-197.
Keith E. Yandell (1976). Miracles, Epistemology and Hume's Barrier. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7 (3):391 - 417.
Claudio Pizzi & Timothy Williamson (1997). Strong Boethius' Thesis and Consequential Implication. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (5):569-588.
W. Demopoulos (2011). Three Views of Theoretical Knowledge. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (1):177-205.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads37 ( #88,208 of 1,725,860 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #53,203 of 1,725,860 )
How can I increase my downloads?