Philosophy, find main argument, premise, con, confusing

Anonymous
timer Asked: Nov 21st, 2016

Question description

This is probably simple for a philosophy person. Can any one find the main argument in this short 2 page reading and rewrite it in their own words. I just need some one to identify the premises and the conclusion of the main argument.

!"#$%&'()*&+$,'-#.#'/#0!1/2#+ 3&+"*.4567$38$98$:.1*. ;*&./#7$3'(<=515>$?*<8$@A>$9*8$@$4B#/8>$ACDE6>$FF8$GH0GC :&)<15"#I$)=7$JK-*.I$L'1M#.51+=$:.#55$*'$)#"(<-$*-$!"#$3'(<=515$N*OO1++## ;+()<#$L%P7$http://www.jstor.org/stable/3326699 3//#55#I7$ECQERQ@EEC$EC7@H Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Oxford University Press and The Analysis Committee are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Analysis. 38 ANALYSIS THE RUNABOUT INFERENCE-TICKET By A. N. PRIOR T is sometimes alleged that there are inferenceswhose validity arises solely from the meanings of certain expressionsoccurringin them. The precise technicalitiesemployed are not important, but let us say that such inferences,if any such there be, are analyticallyvalid. One sort of inference which is sometimes said to be in this sense analyticallyvalid is the passagefrom a conjunctionto either of its conjuncts, e.g., the inference 'Grass is green and the sky is blue, therefore grassis green '. The validity of this inferenceis said to arisesolely from the meaningof the word ' and '. For if we areaskedwhat is the meaning of the word 'and', at least in the purely conjunctivesense (as opposed to, e.g., its colloquial use to mean 'and then '), the answeris said to be given by saying that (i) from any pair of statementsP and Q completely we can infer the statementformed by joining P to Q by 'and' (which statementwe hereafterdescribe as 'the statementP-and-Q'), that (ii) from any conjunctivestatementP-and-Q we can infer P, and (iii) from P-and-Q we can always infer Q. Anyone who has learnt to perform theseinferencesknows the meaningof' and ', for thereis simplynothing more to knowing the meaningof' and ' than being able to performthese inferences. A doubt might be raisedas to whether it is really the case that, for any pair of statementsP and Q, there is always a statementR such that given P and given Q we can infer R, and given R we can infer P and can also infer Q. But on the view we are consideringsuch a doubt is quite misplaced, once we have introduced a word, say the word 'and ', precisely in order to form a statement R with these properties from any pairof statementsP and Q. The doubt reflectsthe old superstitious view that an expression must have some independently determined meaning before we can discover whether inferences involving it are valid or invalid. With analyticallyvalid inferences this just isn't so. I hope the conception of an analyticallyvalid inference is now at least as clearto my readersas it is to myself. If not, furtherillumination is obtainablefrom ProfessorPopper'spaperon' Logic without Assumptions' in Proceedings of the AristotelianSocietyfor 1946-7, and from British Philosophy, Professor Kneale's contribution to Contemporary Volume III. I have also been much helped in my understandingof the notion by some lectures of Mr. Strawson's and some notes of Mr. Hare's. I want now to drawattentionto a point not generallynoticed,namely that in this sense of' analyticallyvalid ' any statementwhatevermay be THE RUNABOUT INFERENCE-TICKET 39 inferred,in an analyticallyvalid way, from any other. ' 2 and 2 are 5', for instance,from ' 2 and 2 are 4 '. It is done in two steps, thus: 2 and 2 are 4. Therefore,2 and 2 are 4 tonk 2 and 2 are 5. Therefore,2 and 2 are 5. There may well be readerswho have not previously encounteredthis conjunction 'tonk', it being a comparativelyrecent addition to the language; but it is the simplest matterin the world to explain what it means. Its meaning is completely given by the rules that (i) from any statement P we can infer any statement formed by joining P to any statement Q by 'tonk' (which compound statement we hereafter describeas' the statementP-tonk-Q '), and that (ii) from any ' contonktive' statementP-tonk-Q we can infer the contained statementQ. A doubt might be raised as to whether it is really the case that, for any pair of statementsP and Q, there is always a statementR such that given P we caninfer R, and given R we caninfer Q. But this doubtis of course quite misplaced,now that we have introducedthe word 'tonk' preciselyin order to form a statementR with these propertiesfrom any pair of statementsP and Q. As a matter of simple history, there have been logicians of some eminence who have seriously doubted whether sentences of the form 'P and Q' express single propositions (and so, e.g., have negations). Aristotle himself, in De Soph.Elench.176 a 1 ff., denies that 'Are Callias and Themistocles musical?' is a single question; and J. S. Mill says of ' Caesaris dead and Brutusis alive' that' we might as well call a street a complex house, as these two propositions a complex proposition' (Systemof LogicI, iv. 3). So it is not to be wondered at if the form 'P tonk Q 'is greetedat firstwith similarscepticism. But more enlightened views will surely prevail at last, especially when men consider the extreme convenience of the new form, which promises to banishfalsehe from SpitfiZndigkeit Logic for ever. University of Manchester.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Studypool Tutor
School: University of Virginia
Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors