Results for 'PREMISE-CHAIN-CONCLUSION DEDUCTION'

996 found
Order:
  1. A Mathematical Model of Aristotle’s Syllogistic.John Corcoran - 1973 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 55 (2):191-219.
    In the present article we attempt to show that Aristotle's syllogistic is an underlying logiC which includes a natural deductive system and that it isn't an axiomatic theory as had previously been thought. We construct a mathematical model which reflects certain structural aspects of Aristotle's logic. We examine the relation of the model to the system of logic envisaged in scattered parts of Prior and Posterior Analytics. Our interpretation restores Aristotle's reputation as a logician of consummate imagination and skill. Several (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  2. The Content of Deduction.Mark Jago - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):317-334.
    For deductive reasoning to be justified, it must be guaranteed to preserve truth from premises to conclusion; and for it to be useful to us, it must be capable of informing us of something. How can we capture this notion of information content, whilst respecting the fact that the content of the premises, if true, already secures the truth of the conclusion? This is the problem I address here. I begin by considering and rejecting several accounts of informational (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  3. Aristotle's Demonstrative Logic.John Corcoran - 2009 - History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (1):1-20.
    Demonstrative logic, the study of demonstration as opposed to persuasion, is the subject of Aristotle's two-volume Analytics. Many examples are geometrical. Demonstration produces knowledge (of the truth of propositions). Persuasion merely produces opinion. Aristotle presented a general truth-and-consequence conception of demonstration meant to apply to all demonstrations. According to him, a demonstration, which normally proves a conclusion not previously known to be true, is an extended argumentation beginning with premises known to be truths and containing a chain of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  4. In Defence of Single-Premise Closure.Weng Tang - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (8):1887-1900.
    It’s often thought that the phenomenon of risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure but not for single-premise closure. But recently, Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter have challenged this thought. Lasonen-Aarnio argues that, insofar as risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure, it poses a similar problem for single-premise closure. For she thinks that, there being such a thing as deductive risk, risk may aggregate over a single premise and the deduction itself. Schechter argues (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  62
    Deducción/Deducibilidad.John Corcoran - 2011 - In Luis Vega and Paula Olmos (ed.), Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica. Editorial Trotta. pp. 168--169.
    Following Quine [] and others we take deductions to produce knowledge of implications: a person gains knowledge that a given premise-set implies a given conclusion by deducing—producing a deduction of—the conclusion from those premises. How does this happen? How does a person recognize their desire for that knowledge of a certain implication, or that they lack it? How do they produce a suitable deduction? And most importantly, how does their production of that deduction provide (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. The Enduring Scandal of Deduction: Is Propositional Logic Really Uninformative?Marcello D'Agostino & Luciano Floridi - 2009 - Synthese 167 (2):271-315.
    Deductive inference is usually regarded as being “tautological” or “analytical”: the information conveyed by the conclusion is contained in the information conveyed by the premises. This idea, however, clashes with the undecidability of first-order logic and with the (likely) intractability of Boolean logic. In this article, we address the problem both from the semantic and the proof-theoretical point of view. We propose a hierarchy of propositional logics that are all tractable (i.e. decidable in polynomial time), although by means of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  7. Deductive Reasoning.Joshua Schechter - 2013 - In Hal Pashler (ed.), The Encyclopedia of the Mind. SAGE Reference.
    Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which, roughly, the truth of the input propositions (the premises) logically guarantees the truth of the output proposition (the conclusion), provided that no mistake has been made in the reasoning. The premises may be propositions that the reasoner believes or assumptions that the reasoner is exploring. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning, the kind of reasoning in which the truth of the premises need not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. Deductive Reasoning Under Uncertainty: A Water Tank Analogy.Guy Politzer - 2016 - Erkenntnis 81 (3):479-506.
    This paper describes a cubic water tank equipped with a movable partition receiving various amounts of liquid used to represent joint probability distributions. This device is applied to the investigation of deductive inferences under uncertainty. The analogy is exploited to determine by qualitative reasoning the limits in probability of the conclusion of twenty basic deductive arguments (such as Modus Ponens, And-introduction, Contraposition, etc.) often used as benchmark problems by the various theoretical approaches to reasoning under uncertainty. The probability bounds (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9. REVIEW OF 1988. Saccheri, G. Euclides Vindicatus (1733), Edited and Translated by G. B. Halsted, 2nd Ed. (1986), in Mathematical Reviews MR0862448. 88j:01013.John Corcoran - 1988 - MATHEMATICAL REVIEWS 88 (J):88j:01013.
    Girolamo Saccheri (1667--1733) was an Italian Jesuit priest, scholastic philosopher, and mathematician. He earned a permanent place in the history of mathematics by discovering and rigorously deducing an elaborate chain of consequences of an axiom-set for what is now known as hyperbolic (or Lobachevskian) plane geometry. Reviewer's remarks: (1) On two pages of this book Saccheri refers to his previous and equally original book Logica demonstrativa (Turin, 1697) to which 14 of the 16 pages of the editor's "Introduction" are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Epistemic Closure Under Deductive Inference: What is It and Can We Afford It?Assaf Sharon & Levi Spectre - 2013 - Synthese 190 (14):2731-2748.
    The idea that knowledge can be extended by inference from what is known seems highly plausible. Yet, as shown by familiar preface paradox and lottery-type cases, the possibility of aggregating uncertainty casts doubt on its tenability. We show that these considerations go much further than previously recognized and significantly restrict the kinds of closure ordinary theories of knowledge can endorse. Meeting the challenge of uncertainty aggregation requires either the restriction of knowledge-extending inferences to single premises, or eliminating epistemic uncertainty in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  11. Remarks on Stoic Deduction.John Corcoran - 1974 - In Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretations. Boston: Reidel. pp. 169--181.
    This paper raises obvious questions undermining any residual confidence in Mates work and revealing our embarrassing ignorance of true nature of Stoic deduction. It was inspired by the challenging exploratory work of JOSIAH GOULD.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  12. Semantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference.Ebba Gullberg & Sten Lindström - 2007 - Hommage À Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz.
    Is it possible to give a justification of our own practice of deductive inference? The purpose of this paper is to explain what such a justification might consist in and what its purpose could be. On the conception that we are going to pursue, to give a justification for a deductive practice means to explain in terms of an intuitively satisfactory notion of validity why the inferences that conform to the practice coincide with the valid ones. That is, a justification (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13.  85
    The Justification of Deductive Inference and the Rationality of Believing for a Reason.Gian-Andri Toendury - 2007 - Dissertation, Université de Fribourg
    The present PhD thesis is concerned with the question whether good reasoning requires that the subject has some cognitive grip on the relation between premises and conclusion. One consideration in favor of such a requirement goes as follows: In order for my belief-formation to be an instance of reasoning, and not merely a causally related sequence of beliefs, the process must be guided by my endorsement of a rule of reasoning. Therefore I must have justified beliefs about the relation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Edition Objective Deduction.Corey W. Dyck - forthcoming - In Giuseppe Motta & Dennis Schulting (eds.), Kant’s Deduction From Apperception: An Essay on the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. Berlin: DeGruyter.
    Kant's A-Edition objective deduction is naturally (and has traditionally been) divided into two arguments: an " argument from above" and one that proceeds " von unten auf." This would suggest a picture of Kant's procedure in the objective deduction as first descending and ascending the same ladder, the better, perhaps, to test its durability or to thoroughly convince the reader of its soundness. There are obvious obstacles to such a reading, however; and in this chapter I will argue (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. “Truth-Preserving and Consequence-Preserving Deduction Rules”,.John Corcoran - 2014 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 20 (1):130-1.
    A truth-preservation fallacy is using the concept of truth-preservation where some other concept is needed. For example, in certain contexts saying that consequences can be deduced from premises using truth-preserving deduction rules is a fallacy if it suggests that all truth-preserving rules are consequence-preserving. The arithmetic additive-associativity rule that yields 6 = (3 + (2 + 1)) from 6 = ((3 + 2) + 1) is truth-preserving but not consequence-preserving. As noted in James Gasser’s dissertation, Leibniz has been criticized (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  60
    Refuting Tarski and Gödel with a Sound Deductive Formalism.P. Olcott - manuscript
    The conventional notion of a formal system is adapted to conform to the sound deductive inference model operating on finite strings. Finite strings stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true provide the sound deductive premises. Truth preserving finite string transformation rules provide the valid deductive inference. Sound deductive conclusions are the result of these finite string transformation rules.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC AND EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY.John Corcoran - 2014 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 20 (1):131-2.
    John Corcoran and George Boger. Aristotelian logic and Euclidean geometry. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 20 (2014) 131. -/- By an Aristotelian logic we mean any system of direct and indirect deductions, chains of reasoning linking conclusions to premises—complete syllogisms, to use Aristotle’s phrase—1) intended to show that their conclusions follow logically from their respective premises and 2) resembling those in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Such systems presuppose existence of cases where it is not obvious that the conclusion follows from the (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. The Founding of Logic: Modern Interpretations of Aristotle’s Logic.John Corcoran - 1994 - Ancient Philosophy 14 (S1):9-24.
    Since the time of Aristotle's students, interpreters have considered Prior Analytics to be a treatise about deductive reasoning, more generally, about methods of determining the validity and invalidity of premise-conclusion arguments. People studied Prior Analytics in order to learn more about deductive reasoning and to improve their own reasoning skills. These interpreters understood Aristotle to be focusing on two epistemic processes: first, the process of establishing knowledge that a conclusion follows necessarily from a set of premises (that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  19. Single Premise Deduction and Risk.Maria Lasonen-Aarnio - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 141 (2):157 - 173.
    It is tempting to think that multi premise closure creates a special class of paradoxes having to do with the accumulation of risks, and that these paradoxes could be escaped by rejecting the principle, while still retaining single premise closure. I argue that single premise deduction is also susceptible to risks. I show that what I take to be the strongest argument for rejecting multi premise closure is also an argument for rejecting single premise (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  20. Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure.Joshua Schechter - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (2):428-452.
    Closure for justification is the claim that thinkers are justified in believing the logical consequences of their justified beliefs, at least when those consequences are competently deduced. Many have found this principle to be very plausible. Even more attractive is the special case of Closure known as Single-Premise Closure. In this paper, I present a challenge to Single-Premise Closure. The challenge is based on the phenomenon of rational self-doubt – it can be rational to be less than fully (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   81 citations  
  21. Objects of Thought.Ian Rumfitt - 2016 - In Gary Ostertag (ed.), Meaning and Other Things: Essays on the Philosophy of Stephen Schiffer. Oxford University Press.
    In his book The Things We Mean, Stephen Schiffer advances a subtle defence of what he calls the ‘face-value’ analysis of attributions of belief and reports of speech. Under this analysis, ‘Harold believes that there is life on Venus’ expresses a relation between Harold and a certain abstract object, the proposition that there is life on Venus. The present essay first proposes an improvement to Schiffer’s ‘pleonastic’ theory of propositions. It then challenges the face-value analysis. There will be such things (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22. Enhancing the Diagramming Method in Informal Logic.Dale Jacquette - 2011 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 1 (2):327-360.
    The argument diagramming method developed by Monroe C. Beardsley in his (1950) book Practical Logic, which has since become the gold standard for diagramming arguments in informal logic, makes it possible to map the relation between premises and conclusions of a chain of reasoning in relatively complex ways. The method has since been adapted and developed in a number of directions by many contemporary informal logicians and argumentation theorists. It has proved useful in practical applications and especially pedagogically in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  23. Boole's Criteria for Validity and Invalidity.John Corcoran & Susan Wood - 1980 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21 (4):609-638.
    It is one thing for a given proposition to follow or to not follow from a given set of propositions and it is quite another thing for it to be shown either that the given proposition follows or that it does not follow.* Using a formal deduction to show that a conclusion follows and using a countermodel to show that a conclusion does not follow are both traditional practices recognized by Aristotle and used down through the history (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  24. When Transmission Fails.Chris Tucker - 2010 - Philosophical Review 119 (4):497-529.
    The Neo-Moorean Deduction (I have a hand, so I am not a brain-in-a-vat) and the Zebra Deduction (the creature is a zebra, so isn’t a cleverly disguised mule) are notorious. Crispin Wright, Martin Davies, Fred Dretske, and Brian McLaughlin, among others, argue that these deductions are instances of transmission failure. That is, they argue that these deductions cannot transmit justification to their conclusions. I contend, however, that the notoriety of these deductions is undeserved. My strategy is to clarify, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  25. Argumentaciones y lógica.J. Corcoran - 1994 - Agora 13 (1):27.
    Argumentations are at the heart of the deductive and the hypothetico-deductive methods, which are involved in attempts to reduce currently open problems to problems already solved. These two methods span the entire spectrum of problem-oriented reasoning from the simplest and most practical to the most complex and most theoretical, thereby uniting all objective thought whether ancient or contemporary, whether humanistic or scientific, whether normative or descriptive, whether concrete or abstract. Analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and function of argumentations are described. Perennial philosophic (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26. Review of Macbeth, D. Diagrammatic Reasoning in Frege's Begriffsschrift. Synthese 186 (2012), No. 1, 289–314. Mathematical Reviews MR 2935338.John Corcoran - 2014 - MATHEMATICAL REVIEWS 2014:2935338.
    A Mathematical Review by John Corcoran, SUNY/Buffalo -/- Macbeth, Danielle Diagrammatic reasoning in Frege's Begriffsschrift. Synthese 186 (2012), no. 1, 289–314. ABSTRACT This review begins with two quotations from the paper: its abstract and the first paragraph of the conclusion. The point of the quotations is to make clear by the “give-them-enough-rope” strategy how murky, incompetent, and badly written the paper is. I know I am asking a lot, but I have to ask you to read the quoted passages—aloud (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. Fitch's Paradox and the Problem of Shared Content.Thorsten Sander - 2006 - Abstracta 3 (1):74-86.
    According to the “paradox of knowability”, the moderate thesis that all truths are knowable – ... – implies the seemingly preposterous claim that all truths are actually known – ... –, i.e. that we are omniscient. If Fitch’s argument were successful, it would amount to a knockdown rebuttal of anti-realism by reductio. In the paper I defend the nowadays rather neglected strategy of intuitionistic revisionism. Employing only intuitionistically acceptable rules of inference, the conclusion of the argument is, firstly, not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. The Premises of Condorcet’s Jury Theorem Are Not Simultaneously Justified.Franz Dietrich - 2008 - Episteme 5 (1):56-73.
    Condorcet's famous jury theorem reaches an optimistic conclusion on the correctness of majority decisions, based on two controversial premises about voters: they are competent and vote independently, in a technical sense. I carefully analyse these premises and show that: whether a premise is justi…ed depends on the notion of probability considered; none of the notions renders both premises simultaneously justi…ed. Under the perhaps most interesting notions, the independence assumption should be weakened.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  29. Natural Deduction for the Sheffer Stroke and Peirce’s Arrow (and Any Other Truth-Functional Connective).Richard Zach - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 (2):183-197.
    Methods available for the axiomatization of arbitrary finite-valued logics can be applied to obtain sound and complete intelim rules for all truth-functional connectives of classical logic including the Sheffer stroke and Peirce’s arrow. The restriction to a single conclusion in standard systems of natural deduction requires the introduction of additional rules to make the resulting systems complete; these rules are nevertheless still simple and correspond straightforwardly to the classical absurdity rule. Omitting these rules results in systems for intuitionistic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. Comprehension, Demonstration, and Accuracy in Aristotle.Breno Zuppolini - 2020 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 58 (1):29-48.
    according to aristotle's posterior analytics, scientific expertise is composed of two different cognitive dispositions. Some propositions in the domain can be scientifically explained, which means that they are known by "demonstration", a deductive argument in which the premises are explanatory of the conclusion. Thus, the kind of cognition that apprehends those propositions is called "demonstrative knowledge".1 However, not all propositions in a scientific domain are demonstrable. Demonstrations are ultimately based on indemonstrable principles, whose knowledge is called "comprehension".2 If the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  31. Epistemic Democracy with Defensible Premises.Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann - 2013 - Economics and Philosophy 29 (1):87--120.
    The contemporary theory of epistemic democracy often draws on the Condorcet Jury Theorem to formally justify the ‘wisdom of crowds’. But this theorem is inapplicable in its current form, since one of its premises – voter independence – is notoriously violated. This premise carries responsibility for the theorem's misleading conclusion that ‘large crowds are infallible’. We prove a more useful jury theorem: under defensible premises, ‘large crowds are fallible but better than small groups’. This theorem rehabilitates the importance (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  32. Complete Enumerative Inductions.John Corcoran - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12:465-6.
    Consider the following. The first is a one-premise argument; the second has two premises. The question sign marks the conclusions as such. -/- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote Greek. ? Every evangelist wrote Greek. -/- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote Greek. Every evangelist is Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. ? Every evangelist wrote Greek. -/- The above pair of premise-conclusion arguments is of a sort familiar to logicians and philosophers of science. In each case the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. Syllogisms Diagrammed: OOA to OOO.Mark Andrews - manuscript
    This document diagrams the forms OOA, OOE, OOI, and OOO, including all four figures. Each form and figure has the following information: (1) Premises as stated: Venn diagram showing what the premises say; (2) Purported conclusion: diagram showing what the premises claim to say; (3) Relation of premises to conclusion: intended to describe how the premises and conclusion relate to each other, such as validity or contradiction. Used in only a few examples; (4) Distribution: intended to create (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Transmission Failure Explained.Martin Smith - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (1):164-189.
    In this paper I draw attention to a peculiar epistemic feature exhibited by certain deductively valid inferences. Certain deductively valid inferences are unable to enhance the reliability of one's belief that the conclusion is true—in a sense that will be fully explained. As I shall show, this feature is demonstrably present in certain philosophically significant inferences—such as GE Moore's notorious 'proof' of the existence of the external world. I suggest that this peculiar epistemic feature might be correlated with the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  35. Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom Revisited.Charles Pigden - forthcoming - In Olli Loukola (ed.), Secrets and Conspiracies. Rodopi.
    Conspiracy theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of belief. I defend epistemic ‘oughts’ that apply in the first instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our control. I argue that the policy of systematically doubting or disbelieving conspiracy theories would be both a political disaster and the epistemic equivalent of self-mutilation, since (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  36. Closure Failure and Scientific Inquiry.Sherri Roush - 2017 - Res Philosophica 94 (2):275-299.
    Deduction is important to scientific inquiry because it can extend knowledge efficiently, bypassing the need to investigate everything directly. The existence of closure failure—where one knows the premises and that the premises imply the conclusion but nevertheless does not know the conclusion—is a problem because it threatens this usage. It means that we cannot trust deduction for gaining new knowledge unless we can identify such cases ahead of time so as to avoid them. For philosophically engineered (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  80
    Two Deductions: (1) From the Totality to Quantum Information Conservation; (2) From the Latter to Dark Matter and Dark Energy.Vasil Penchev - 2020 - Information Theory and Research eJournal (Elsevier: SSRN) 1 (28):1-47.
    The paper discusses the origin of dark matter and dark energy from the concepts of time and the totality in the final analysis. Though both seem to be rather philosophical, nonetheless they are postulated axiomatically and interpreted physically, and the corresponding philosophical transcendentalism serves heuristically. The exposition of the article means to outline the “forest for the trees”, however, in an absolutely rigorous mathematical way, which to be explicated in detail in a future paper. The “two deductions” are two successive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38. Aristotle’s “Whenever Three Terms”.John Corcoran - 2013 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 19 (3):234-235.
    The premise-fact confusion in Aristotle’s PRIOR ANALYTICS. -/- The premise-fact fallacy is talking about premises when the facts are what matters or talking about facts when the premises are what matters. It is not useful to put too fine a point on this pencil. -/- In one form it is thinking that the truth-values of premises are relevant to what their consequences in fact are, or relevant to determining what their consequences are. Thus, e.g., someone commits the (...)-fact fallacy if they think that a proposition has different consequences were it true than it would have if false. C. I. Lewis said that confusing logical consequence with material consequence leads to this fallacy. See Corcoran’s 1973 “Meanings of implication” [available on Academia. edu]. -/- The premise-fact confusion occurs in a written passage that implies the premise-fact fallacy or that suggests that the writer isn’t clear about the issues involved in the premise-fact fallacy. Here are some examples. -/- E1: If Abe is Ben and Ben swims, then it would follow that Abe swims. -/- Comment: The truth is that from “Abe is Ben and Ben swims”, the proposition “Abe swims” follows. Whether in fact Abe is Ben and Ben swims is irrelevant to whether “Abe swims” follows from “Abe is Ben and Ben swims”. -/- E1 suggests that maybe “Abe swims” wouldn’t follow from “Abe is Ben and Ben swims” if the latter were false. -/- E2: The truth of “Abe is Ben and Ben swims” implies that Abe swims. -/- E3: Indirect deduction requires assuming something false. -/- Comment: If the premises of an indirect deduction are true the conclusion is true and thus the “reductio” assumption is false. But deduction, whether direct or indirect, does not require true premises. In fact, indirect deduction is often used to determine that the premises are not all true. -/- Anyway, the one-page paper accompanying this abstract reports one of dozens of premise-fact errors in PRIOR ANALYTICS. In the session, people can add their own examples and comment on them. For example, is the one at 25b32 the first? What is the next premise-fact error after 25b32? Which translators or commentators discuss this? -/- . (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Mr. Magoo’s Mistake.Assaf Sharon & Levi Spectre - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 139 (2):289-306.
    Timothy Williamson has famously argued that the principle should be rejected. We analyze Williamson's argument and show that its key premise is ambiguous, and that when it is properly stated this premise no longer supports the argument against. After canvassing possible objections to our argument, we reflect upon some conclusions that suggest significant epistemological ramifications pertaining to the acquisition of knowledge from prior knowledge by deduction.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  40. Apodeictic Syllogisms: Deductions and Decision Procedures.Fred Johnson - 1995 - History and Philosophy of Logic 16 (1):1-18.
    One semantic and two syntactic decision procedures are given for determining the validity of Aristotelian assertoric and apodeictic syllogisms. Results are obtained by using the Aristotelian deductions that necessarily have an even number of premises.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41. Can Kants Deduction of Judgments of Taste Be Saved?Miles Rind - 2002 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 84 (1):20-45.
    Kant’s argument in § 38 of the *Critique of Judgment* is subject to a dilemma: if the subjective condition of cognition is the sufficient condition of the pleasure of taste, then every object of experience must produce that pleasure; if not, then the universal communicability of cognition does not entail the universal communicability of the pleasure. Kant’s use of an additional premise in § 21 may get him out of this difficulty, but the premises themselves hang in the air (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  42.  30
    Opuscula Logica. 2. The Tripropositional Bivalent Level (3L2) and its Relationship with the Aristotelic Syllogistic.Gabriel Garduño-Soto - 2008 - Mexico, DF, MEXICO: Author's edition.
    In this fragment of Opuscula Logica it is displayed an arithmetical treatment of the aristotelic syllogisms upon the previous interpretations of Christine Ladd-Franklin and Jean Piaget. For the first time, the whole deductive corpus for each syllogism is presented in the two innovative modalities first proposed by Hugo Padilla Chacón. A. The Projection method (all the possible expressions that can be deduced through the conditional from a logical expression) and B. The Retrojection method (all the possible valid antecedents or premises (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. Eliminating Undecidability and Incompleteness in Formal Systems.Pete Olcott - manuscript
    To eliminate incompleteness, undecidability and inconsistency from formal systems we only need to convert the formal proofs to theorem consequences of symbolic logic to conform to the sound deductive inference model. -/- Within the sound deductive inference model there is a (connected sequence of valid deductions from true premises to a true conclusion) thus unlike the formal proofs of symbolic logic provability cannot diverge from truth.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. Mathematical Deduction by Induction.Christy Ailman - 2013 - Gratia Eruditionis:4-12.
    In attempt to provide an answer to the question of origin of deductive proofs, I argue that Aristotle’s philosophy of math is more accurate opposed to a Platonic philosophy of math, given the evidence of how mathematics began. Aristotle says that mathematical knowledge is a posteriori, known through induction; but once knowledge has become unqualified it can grow into deduction. Two pieces of recent scholarship on Greek mathematics propose new ways of thinking about how mathematics began in the Greek (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. Letter From a Gentleman in Dunedin to a Lady in the Countryside.Charles Pigden - 2010 - In Hume on Is and Ought.
    I argue 1) That in his celebrated Is/Ought passage, Hume employs ‘deduction’ in the strict sense, according to which if a conclusion B is justly or evidently deduced from a set of premises A, A cannot be true and B false, or B false and the premises A true. 2) That Hume was following the common custom of his times which sometimes employed ‘deduction’ in a strict sense to denote inferences in which, in the words of Dr (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. LOGIC TEACHING IN THE 21ST CENTURY.John Corcoran - 2016 - Quadripartita Ratio: Revista de Argumentación y Retórica 1 (1):1-34.
    We are much better equipped to let the facts reveal themselves to us instead of blinding ourselves to them or stubbornly trying to force them into preconceived molds. We no longer embarrass ourselves in front of our students, for example, by insisting that “Some Xs are Y” means the same as “Some X is Y”, and lamely adding “for purposes of logic” whenever there is pushback. Logic teaching in this century can exploit the new spirit of objectivity, humility, clarity, observationalism, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  47. Information-Theoretic Logic and Transformation-Theoretic Logic,.John Corcoran - 1999 - In R. A. M. M. (ed.), Fragments in Science,. World Scientific Publishing Company,. pp. 25-35.
    Information-theoretic approaches to formal logic analyze the "common intuitive" concepts of implication, consequence, and validity in terms of information content of propositions and sets of propositions: one given proposition implies a second if the former contains all of the information contained by the latter; one given proposition is a consequence of a second if the latter contains all of the information contained by the former; an argument is valid if the conclusion contains no information beyond that of the (...)-set. This paper locates information-theoretic approaches historically, philosophically, and pragmatically. Advantages and disadvantages are identified by examining such approaches in themselves and by contrasting them with standard transformation-theoretic approaches. Transformation-theoretic approaches analyze validity (and thus implication) in terms of transformations that map one argument onto another: a given argument is valid if no transformation carries it onto an argument with all true premises and false conclusion. Model-theoretic, set-theoretic, and substitution-theoretic approaches, which dominate current literature, can be construed as transformation-theoretic, as can the so-called possible-worlds approaches. Ontic and epistemic presuppositions of both types of approaches are considered. Attention is given to the question of whether our historically cumulative experience applying logic is better explained from a purely information-theoretic perspective or from a purely transformation-theoretic perspective or whether apparent conflicts between the two types of approaches need to be reconciled in order to forge a new type of approach that recognizes their basic complementarity. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  12
    'Deduction' Versus 'Inference' and the Denotation of Conditional Sentences.Carsten Breul - manuscript
    The paper defends a variant of the material implication approach to the meaning of conditional sentences against some arguments that are considered to be widely subscribed to and/or important in the philosophical, psychological and linguistic literature. These arguments are shown to be wrong, debatable, or to miss their aim if the truth conditions defining material implication are viewed as determining nothing but the denotation of conditional sentences and if the function of conditional sentences in deduction (logic) is focused on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. Deductively Sound Formal Proofs.P. Olcott - manuscript
    Could the intersection of [formal proofs of mathematical logic] and [sound deductive inference] specify formal systems having [deductively sound formal proofs of mathematical logic]? All that we have to do to provide [deductively sound formal proofs of mathematical logic] is select the subset of conventional [formal proofs of mathematical logic] having true premises and now we have [deductively sound formal proofs of mathematical logic].
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Moral Knowledge By Deduction.Declan Smithies - forthcoming - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
    How is moral knowledge possible? This paper defends the anti-Humean thesis that we can acquire moral knowledge by deduction from wholly non-moral premises. According to Hume’s Law, as it has become known, we cannot deduce an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, since it is “altogether inconceivable how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it” (Hume, 1739, 3.1.1). This paper explores the prospects for a deductive theory of moral knowledge that rejects Hume’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 996