Rules, norms and basic knowledge

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.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Logical knowledge and Gettier cases.Corine Besson - 2009 - Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234):1-19.
Are methodological rules hypothetical imperatives?David B. Resnik - 1992 - Philosophy of Science 59 (3):498-507.
Rule consistency.Jaap Hage - 2000 - Law and Philosophy 19 (3):369-390.
Induction and Supposition.Brian Weatherson - 2012 - The Reasoner 6:78-80.
Harmonising Natural Deduction.Hartley Slater - 2008 - Synthese 163 (2):187 - 198.
Order relations among efficient decision rules.Jacob Paroush - 1997 - Theory and Decision 43 (3):209-218.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-07-31

Downloads
207 (#92,720)

6 months
34 (#97,512)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Brian Weatherson
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references