Timeline for What is a convincing explanation of how Russell's "golden mountains" argument is logically fallacious?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2023 at 21:11 | comment | added | Bumble | The term 'existential import' may be modern, but the concept is not. Most interpreters of Aristotle understand him to be taking at least the A and I propositions as requiring the existence of the subject: this goes back at least as far as Ibn Sina and was well established by the time of Ockham and Buridan. The Aristotelian square does not mean only that "All S is P" entails "Some S is P". It also requires that "No S is P" entails "Some S is not P" and this is what I claim is implausible. It requires O propositions to mean, "Either there are no S, or if there are, at least some are not P". | |
| Feb 13, 2023 at 17:00 | comment | added | Speakpigeon | 1. "it is even less plausible to accept that "no Fs are Gs" has existential import." All Aristotle's syllogistic means is "All S's are P" implies "Some S is P". He didn't talk of anything like "existential import". This is a modern interpretation. Reproaching him a claim he never made is fallacious. 2. Can I trust that your answer covers the state of the art on the validity of Russell's argument? Are you sure no scholar convincingly invalidated Russell's argument? 3. "using the theory of conversational implicature." Any author or paper particularly? | |
| Feb 12, 2023 at 18:55 | history | answered | Bumble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |