Ideas from '"Yes" and "No"' by Ian Rumfitt [2000], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Mind' (ed/tr -) [- ,]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 1. Overview of Logic
If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter
                        Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation.
                        From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II)
                        A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts.
5. Theory of Logic / E. Structures of Logic / 2. Logical Connectives / a. Logical connectives
The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference
                        Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious.
                        From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III)
                        A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value.
Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table
                        Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table.
                        From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000])
                        A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge.
19. Language / F. Communication / 3. Denial
We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence
                        Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A.
                        From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV)
                        A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role).