[hist-analytic] One Brief Addendum Discussion of Aune's ETK, Chapter Two: Modus Ponens/Tollens

Baynesr at comcast.net Baynesr at comcast.net
Fri Oct 30 17:26:24 EDT 2009



I'm getting swamped by all this and I must move on to the issues raised by 

Putnam etc., otherwise it will take forever to get throught Bruce's book. 



I am OK with giving others the last word. So far no one has engaged my 

argument based on the "analyticity" of 'q' in the posting where I bring up 

concessives etc. Since I believe these arguments remain valid and have not 

been specifically addressed, I'll let stand what has been said by Bruce 

and Danny. 



Be back soon, hopefully, with something on Putnam etc. 



Regards 



Steve 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Aune" <aune at philos.umass.edu> 
To: "Danny Frederick" <danny.frederick at btinternet.com> 
Cc: Baynesr at comcast.net, "hist-analytic" <hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk> 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 5:13:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: One Brief Addendum Discussion of Aune's ETK, Chapter Two: Modus Ponens/Tollens 

I agree with most of what Danny says in his last two memos to Steve; I   
disagree only with some of his skeptical claims.  As I ague in my   
third chapter, I think standard logic can be "saved" by making   
suitable restrictions on what we allow as "proper substituends" for   
the schematic letters in our Logical laws and inference patterns.  Of   
course, making such restrictions raises problems elsewhere.  We have   
to find acceptable ways of handing the formulas (sentences) that we   
have excluded.  New systems may be neeed. 

Bruce 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20091030/42520640/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the hist-analytic mailing list