[Craig, previously] > http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html > > Carroll satirizes the view that inference rules are premises. [Steve] > I think he was satirizing the notion that any conclusion whatsoever > can be forced from a set of premises.
But this as usual misses the point. Sure someone can balk at a valid argument with an "is" conclusion, just as they can at one with a "ought" conclusion. But there are an infinite number of valid arguments with an "is" conclusion & "is" premises, but the question remains whether there are any valid arguments with an "ought" conclusion & only "is" premises. Craig 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
