tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post4985213565612070418..comments2023-10-10T09:46:13.964-04:00Comments on Tillers on Evidence and Inference: An Improved Deductive ArgumentAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-29570732902828388542009-03-02T02:48:00.000-05:002009-03-02T02:48:00.000-05:00gulp, sorry, but my first point missed a premise:e...gulp, sorry, but my first point missed a premise:<BR/><BR/>either H prefers P or H prefers ~PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-90644311651668144752009-02-25T22:47:00.000-05:002009-02-25T22:47:00.000-05:001. I suggest that a preferable way of setting ...1. I suggest that a preferable way of setting it out is:<BR/><BR/>Premise: if H prefers ~P, then H prefers ~L. <BR/>Premise : If H prefers L, then H does not prefer ~L. <BR/>Premise : H prefers L.<BR/>Conclusion : H prefers P. <BR/><BR/><BR/>2. It’s confused to say:<BR/>if H prefers P --> H prefers L<BR/><BR/>You could say (H prefers P) (H prefers L)<BR/>or <BR/>If H prefers P, then H prefers L<BR/><BR/>but you can’t use “If” together an implication sign.<BR/><BR/><BR/>3. Why say “(H prefers L) is True”? <BR/><BR/>Why not just say “H prefers L”?<BR/><BR/><BR/>4. I suggest it’s preferable to avoid “The inference, or conclusion, [(H prefers P) is True] is valid”.<BR/><BR/>This is because arguments are valid, whereas assertions, conclusions etc are true. <BR/><BR/><BR/>5. I also suggest that there is an ambiguity in your premise:<BR/>All Hs prefer P or ~P<BR/><BR/>It could mean, “Either (All Hs prefer P) or (All Hs prefer ~P)<BR/>or “For every H, it is the case that H prefers or that H prefers ~P”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-56722672973824147522009-02-25T16:44:00.000-05:002009-02-25T16:44:00.000-05:00Hello, and thanks for taking the time. My concern...Hello, and thanks for taking the time. My concern is not about whether P and not-P are the only alternatives for H to choose between, but instead with whether P is the <I>only</I> way to get to L. (And likewise, whether not-P is the only way to get to not-L.)<BR/><BR/>In specific dialectical contexts, as you said, it might be perfectly clear to everyone evaluating the argument that P is the only way to get to L. But I had in mind contexts where that information needs to be an explicit part of the argument in order for the argument to succeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-4277829214408934812009-02-20T16:54:00.000-05:002009-02-20T16:54:00.000-05:00Dear Philosoraptor, I will respond informally -- s...Dear Philosoraptor, I will respond informally -- since that's really all I can do. The argument is this: if Hs must either prefer P or not-P and if H prefers L, H must prefer P -- because H cannot prefer not-P because if H does so H must prefer not-L (see Premise 2). If you think that a biconditional has to go into this argument to make it work formally speaking, please feel free to add it (and I won't be in a position to object. [I am tempted to say that the argument above generates a biconditional, but I speak loosely].) My basic point: I have a hard time seeing how the informally-stated deductive argument fails to force the inference that H prefers P. Of course, one or more of the premises or assumptions of the argument may be false. But that point takes us elsewhere. My main objective at the moment is to give either-you're-with-me-or-against-me reasoning the maximum possible force it can have. (Since I think most such reasoning is defective when it is viewed from a broader perspective, I wouldn't be unhappy to discover that it fails as a deductive argument even when the assumptions and premises most favorable to the argument are granted.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-4702458820522009632009-02-20T15:30:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:30:00.000-05:00I think that it's still an example of affirming th...I think that it's still an example of affirming the consequent...<BR/><BR/>Premise 1 sets out the conditional. Premise 3 asserts the consequent. But unless the conditional in Premise 1 is interpreted as a biconditional, then the argument likely won't be valid.<BR/>(abundant examples, e.g., "If Homer prefers peas, then Homer prefers legumes. Homer prefers legumes. Therefore, Homer prefers peas" is not valid unless the "if" means "if and only if".)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com