more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Maybe some arguments are really only valid when a suppressed premise is made explicit, as when we say that 'taller than' is a transitive concept. ...But what is added by making the hidden premise explicit? It cannot alter the soundness of the argument.
Gist of Idea
Maybe arguments are only valid when suppressed premises are all stated - but why?
Source
Stephen Read (Formal and Material Consequence [1994], 'Suppress')
Book Ref
'Philosophy of Logic: an anthology', ed/tr. Jacquette,Dale [Blackwell 2002], p.242
Related Idea
Idea 14182 If the logic of 'taller of' rests just on meaning, then logic may be the study of merely formal consequence [Read]
| 14187 | If logic is topic-neutral that means it delves into all subjects, rather than having a pure subject matter [Read] |
| 14188 | Not all arguments are valid because of form; validity is just true premises and false conclusion being impossible [Read] |
| 14182 | If the logic of 'taller of' rests just on meaning, then logic may be the study of merely formal consequence [Read] |
| 14184 | In modus ponens the 'if-then' premise contributes nothing if the conclusion follows anyway [Read] |
| 14186 | Logical connectives contain no information, but just record combination relations between facts [Read] |
| 14185 | Conditionals are just a shorthand for some proof, leaving out the details [Read] |
| 14183 | Maybe arguments are only valid when suppressed premises are all stated - but why? [Read] |