David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
I was quite excited when I first read Restall and Russell’s (2010) paper. For two reasons. First, because the paper provides rigorous formulations and formal proofs of implication barrier the- ses, namely “theses [which] deny that one can derive sentences of one type from sentences of another”. Second (and primarily), because the paper proves a general theorem, the Barrier Con- struction Theorem, which unifies implication barrier theses concerning four topics: generality, necessity, time, and normativity. After thinking about the paper, I am satisfied with its treatment of the first three topics, namely generality, necessity, and time. But I am not satisfied with its treatment of normativity, so my comments are exclusively on that topic.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Peter Milne (2008). Russell's Completeness Proof. History and Philosophy of Logic 29 (1):31-62.
Susan Rogerson & Sam Butchart (2002). Naïve Comprehension and Contracting Implications. Studia Logica 71 (1):119-132.
Greg Restall (1996). Truthmakers, Entailment and Necessity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (2):331 – 340.
M. Campercholi, D. Castaño & J. P. Díaz Varela (2011). Quasivarieties and Congruence Permutability of Łukasiewicz Implication Algebras. Studia Logica 98 (1-2):267-283.
Gabriel Rabin (2007). Full-Blooded Reference. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (3):357-365.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #126,760 of 1,009,639 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,009,639 )
How can I increase my downloads?