In: International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences, 2 (April 2015), Nr. 2. pp. 1-3. ISSN 2394-9694
Preview |
PDF, English
- main document
Download (154kB) | Terms of use |
Abstract
Argumentative thought experiments are structurally conditional clauses. They can hence be formalized by means of the principle of modus ponendo ponens, as well as of modus tollendo tollens. In contrast to the practice in formal logic, exponents of argumentative thought experiments claim that the logical validity of a conclusion drawn within the framework of a particular conditional argument also holds beyond the particular conditional in question. In this paper, I articulate the criticism that this claim is wrong by arguing that the counterfactual scenario sets itself the most determinant premise. If the counterfactual scenario sets the initial conditional premise of the argument, then its true conclusion holds only as a counterfactual truth. The present paper illustrates this criticism using Frank Jackson’s thought experiment, the so-called knowledge argument, as a concrete example.
Document type: | Article |
---|---|
Journal or Publication Title: | International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences |
Volume: | 2 |
Number: | 2 |
Publisher: | Novelty Journals |
Place of Publication: | Lucknow,U.P., India |
Date Deposited: | 20 Apr 2015 07:49 |
Date: | April 2015 |
ISSN: | 2394-9694 |
Page Range: | pp. 1-3 |
Faculties / Institutes: | Philosophische Fakultät > Philosophisches Seminar |
DDC-classification: | 000 Generalities, Science 100 Philosophy 150 Psychology 400 Linguistics 500 Natural sciences and mathematics |
Controlled Keywords: | thought experiments, counterfactual scenario, truth, knowledge argument, Frank Jackson, modus ponendo ponens, modus tollendo tollens, validity, valuation |