more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Implication is cumulative, in a way that inference may not be. In argument one accumulates conclusions; things are always added, never subtracted. Reasoned revision, however, can subtract from one's view as well as add.
Gist of Idea
Implication just accumulates conclusions, but inference may also revise our views
Source
Gilbert Harman (Change in View: Principles of Reasoning [1986], 1)
Book Ref
Harman,Gilbert: 'Change in View: Principles of Reasoning' [MIP 1986], p.4
A Reaction
This has caught Harman's attention, I think (?), because he is looking for non-monotonic reasoning (i.e. revisable reasoning) within a classical framework. If revision is responding to evidence, the logic can remain conventional.
| 19304 | The rules of reasoning are not the rules of logic [Harman] |
| 19303 | Implication just accumulates conclusions, but inference may also revise our views [Harman] |
| 19305 | The Gambler's Fallacy (ten blacks, so red is due) overemphasises the early part of a sequence [Harman] |
| 19308 | We strongly desire to believe what is true, even though logic does not require it [Harman] |
| 19307 | If there is a great cost to avoiding inconsistency, we learn to reason our way around it [Harman] |
| 19309 | Logic has little relevance to reasoning, except when logical conclusions are immediate [Harman] |
| 19306 | It is a principle of reasoning not to clutter your mind with trivialities [Harman] |
| 19310 | High probability premises need not imply high probability conclusions [Harman] |
| 19311 | In revision of belief, we need to keep track of justifications for foundations, but not for coherence [Harman] |
| 19312 | Coherence is intelligible connections, especially one element explaining another [Harman] |