David Losk
Phil 405
Notes (Chapter one) “Articulating Reasons”
What can you infer (Articulating Reasons)
Natural Premise 1 It’s raining outside -inference
C The streets are wet
Formal Premise 2 If it rains, then the streets are wet -formal inference
Premise 3 If p1 & p2, then c p1 & (p1 -> c), then c
Premise 4 If p1 & p2 & p3 then c
“Achilles and the Tortoise” (tortoise: there always is a question)
The formal inference puts the inference in a context which is complete (fully expressed) and the
question can be asked why this is so. The inference not formalized is incomplete, unexplained
fully both premise and conclusion.
Causes are reduced to conditional
Material inference the agreement of the premise and the conclusion as to being correct.
Rules are different for formal language and the natural language. Natural language inferences
are seen as formal inference by mistake (Sellars)
Bob says confirming the antecedent is a rule of inference. The rule is defined by the definition
of the If and Then, with the definition, will allow you to follow the rules of logic
Bob says: Inference from which meaning flows is the engagement in reasoning or the act of
reasoning.
The formalist approach to inference replaces the material inference of the natural language
or”primitive goodness of inference for truth of conditionals”
Bob’s view is, different than Sellars, the material inference is not incomplete and if its
correctness is implicit using the “Socratic method” formally you should be able to make explicit
your proposition. Implied: this can be done with the richness of the natural language and the
articulation of reason
Introduction rule – “Set of sufficient conditions for asserting it”
Elimination rule – “Set of necessary consequences of asserting it” (what follows from doing so)
The rules of if, then, conditionals and antecedent can infer consequence.
Negation in language – something not being the case and committed to it can be called a
sentential operator such as: It’s (not) dark.
Bob – logical vocabulary - it sets up these kinds of relationships among propositions, prior
relationships to make explicit what was implicit
Primacy rule – formal logic is not prior, makes explicit what was implicit
To know a meaning of a term- you should know what follows from that term (from affirming it)
Language game is logical to non-logical- what does it take to give it meaning. Verification and
ascentability conditions- what must be obtained to be able to ascend
Consequence conditions - verificationists dwell on the verification and ascentability conditionsfocus on downstream application.
Kids learn first when to say something (the entry and exit moves) then next they learn what is
embedded in it (meaning). One would think Bob is saying we have potential if we follow the
rules and our natural language is up to providing the necessary tools and the theory for
knowledge
Pragmatist – understand affirmation and denials of a concept
Consequences of affirming
Consequences of denying