David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises; its conclusions are consequences of its premises. But in what sense do conclusions follow from premises? What is it for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? Those questions, in many respects, are at the heart of logic (as a philosophical discipline). Consider the following argument: If we charge high fees for university, only the rich will enroll. We charge high fees for university. Therefore, only the rich will enroll. There are many different things one can say about this argument, but many agree that if we do not equivocate (if the terms mean the same thing in the premises and the conclusion) then the argument is valid, that is, the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. This does not mean that the conclusion is true. Perhaps the premises are not true. However, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true, as a matter of logic. This entry is about the relation between premises and conclusions in valid arguments.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul Oppenheimer & Edward N. Zalta (2011). A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (2):333 - 349.
Carlos Santamaria Juan A. Garcia-Madruga Philip & N. Johnson-Laird (1998). Reasoning From Double Conditionals: The Effects of Logical Structure and Believability. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (2):97 – 122.
D. J. Shoesmith (1978). Multiple-Conclusion Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
Victoria F. Shaw (1996). The Cognitive Processes in Informal Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (1):51 – 80.
Agustín Rayo & Timothy Williamson (2003). A Completeness Theorem for Unrestricted First-Order Languages. In Jc Beall (ed.), Liars and Heaps. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #86,005 of 1,089,062 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,062 )
How can I increase my downloads?