The problem of basic deductive inference

Knowledge can be transmitted by a valid deductive inference. If I know that p, and I know that if p then q, then I can infer that q, and I can thereby come to know that q. What feature of a valid deductive inference enables it to transmit knowledge? In some cases, it is a proof of validity that grounds the transmission of knowledge. If the subject can prove that her inference follows a valid rule, then her inference transmits knowledge. However, this only pushes the question back to the inference that was made in this proof. What feature of that inference enables it to transmit knowledge? A vicious regress looms here. Every proof requires a valid inference, and every valid inference must follow at least one rule of inference. So every proof must follow at least one rule of inference. Therefore not every valid inference that transmits knowledge can acquire this power through a proof, on pain of vicious infinite regress. So it must be possible to transmit knowledge by making an inference that follows an underived rule. A deductive inference that follows an underived rule is what I will call a basic deductive inference. It must be possible to transmit knowledge by making a basic deductive inference. But how is this possible? What feature of a basic deductive inference gives it this power to transmit knowledge?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,507
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Poincaré Against the Logicians.Michael Detlefsen - 1992 - Synthese 90 (3):349 - 378.
What is an Inference Rule?Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y. Halpern & Moshe Y. Vardi - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (3):1018-1045.
The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference.Brian Lightbody & Berman Michael - 2010 - Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 30 (2):185-193.
Epistemology Today: A Perspective in Retrospect. [REVIEW]Ernest Sosa - 1981 - Philosophical Studies 40 (3):309 - 332.
.[author unknown] - unknown
Assertion, Inference, and Consequence.Peter Pagin - 2012 - Synthese 187 (3):869 - 885.


Added to PP index

Total downloads
123 ( #48,134 of 2,268,146 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #66,921 of 2,268,146 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature