Hi Craig, On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [Craig, previously] > [P1] Socrates is a man. > [P2] A man is mortal. > [C1] :.Socrates is mortal. > > [Steve] >> What is implicit and agreed upon in advance without needing to be >> stated is a premise P3 that tells us that such premises like P1 and P2 >> when taken together ought to make us conclude the sorts of claim that >> you have concluded. Without such an additional ought-premise your >> conclusion would be unwarranted. > > You're confusing inference rules with premises. > Antidote @ > http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html > > > The inference rule states that if each premise IS true, then the conclusion > also IS true. What you ought to conclude is an additional question.
What you ought to conclude is what the inference rules are prescribing. Aren't rules sorts of "oughts"? What is a rule if not a claim about what ought to be done under certain circumstances? In other words, I don't think I'm confusing them. I think such rules really ARE premises that are taken for granted with out stating them as such. Rules are norms and "oughts" that must be presupposed to be able to derive an is from other ises. I think this is what Horse was saying earlier. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
