Philosophical Investigations 40 (1):31-39 (2017)

Authors
David Botting
De La Salle University (PhD)
Abstract
There is no philosophically interesting distinction to be made between inference-rules and premises. That there is such a distinction is often held to follow from the possibility of infinite regress illustrated by Carroll's story of Achilles and the tortoise. I will argue that this is wrong on three separate grounds. Consequently, Carroll's fable provides no motivation to abandon the traditional logical separation of arguments into their premises and conclusions. There is no proposition that must be taken to be a rule and must not be taken as a premise.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/phin.12106
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,666
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

The Logical Evaluation of Arguments.David Botting - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (2):167-180.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-12-20

Total views
20 ( #494,606 of 2,349,380 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #330,956 of 2,349,380 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes