Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Lewis Carroll’s 1895 paper “Achilles and the Tortoise” showed that we need a distinction between rules of inference and premises. We cannot, on pain of regress, treat all rules simply as further premises in an argument. But Carroll’s paper doesn’t say very much about what rules there must be. Indeed, it is consistent with what Carroll says there to think that the only rule is -elimination. You might think that modern Bayesians, who seem to think that the only rule of inference they need is conditionalisation, have taken just this lesson from Carroll. But obviously nothing in Carroll’s argument rules out there being other rules as well.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Corine Besson (2009). Logical Knowledge and Gettier Cases. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234):1-19.
Hartley Slater (2008). Harmonising Natural Deduction. Synthese 163 (2):187 - 198.
Lorenzo Bernasconi-Kohn (2006). How Not to Think About Rules and Rule Following: A Response to Stueber. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (1):86-94.
J. Hage (2000). Rule Consistency. Law and Philosophy 19 (3):369-390.
David B. Resnik (1992). Are Methodological Rules Hypothetical Imperatives? Philosophy of Science 59 (3):498-507.
V. V. Rybakov, M. Terziler & C. Gencer (2000). On Self-Admissible Quasi-Characterizing Inference Rules. Studia Logica 65 (3):417-428.
Stephen Read (2010). General-Elimination Harmony and the Meaning of the Logical Constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):557-76.
Douglas Walton (2006). Rules for Reasoning From Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge. Philosophia 34 (3):355-376.
Jacob Paroush (1997). Order Relations Among Efficient Decision Rules. Theory and Decision 43 (3):209-218.
Added to index2009-07-31
Total downloads33 ( #41,979 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?