Moore’s Paradox as an Argument Against Anti-realism

Chapter
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 23)

Abstract

Moorean validities are any in-general invalid inferences such as: “P; therefore I believe that P”. While these are prima facie invalid, they have no counterexamples, since any assertion of the truth of the premise pragmatically forces the conclusion to be true. I first show that Dummettian anti-realists have a seemingly impossible time explaining why Moorean validities are not valid. Then I argue that the anti-realist could restrict applications of Moorean validities to inferential situations outside of the scope of things assumed hypothetically for further discharge. In conclusion, I show how Brogaard and Salerno’s argument against Neil Tennant runs afoul of this restriction and also suggest that famous arguments by Berkeley and Davidson do as well.

Keywords

Realist Conception Natural Deduction System Correct Belief Proof Theoretic Semantic Double Negation Elimination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Berit Brogaard, Emily Beck Cogburn, Jacques Dubucs, Jeff Roland, Joe Salerno, Mark Silcox, and Neil Tennant for conversation and inspiration. This paper arose out of sustained reflection on [2, 8]. I would have liked to further discuss the parts of Brogaard and Salerno’s piece that strike me as both non-trivial and true (i.e. the important restrictions on various options for an anti-realist account of modality), as well as to have explored a Dubucsian reaction to Moorean validities in more detail. However, space-time constraints, combined with the internal logic of the paper, prohibited this.

References

  1. 1.
    Berkeley, G. 2005. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brogaard, B., and J. Salerno. 2002. “Clues to the Paradoxes of Knowability.” Analysis 62:143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cogburn, J. 2004. “Paradox Lost.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34(2):195–216.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cogburn, J. 2005a. “Tonking a Theory of Content: An Inferentialist Rejoinder.” Logic and Logical Philosophy 13:31–36.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cogburn, J. 2005b. “The Logic of Logical Revision: Formalizing Dummett’s Argument.” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83(1):15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davidson, D. 1982. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme.” In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 183–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dragalin, A. 1980. Mathematical Intuitionism, Introduction to Proof Theory. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubucs, J. 2002. “Feasibility in Logic.” Synthese 132:213–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dummett, M. 1978. “On the Philosophical Significance of Gödel’s Theorem.” In Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dummett, M. 1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fitch, F. 1963. “A Logical Analysis of Some Value Concepts.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 28:135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prior, A. 1960. “The Runabout Inference-Ticket.” Analysis 21:38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salerno, J. 2000. “Revising the Logic of Logical Revision.” Philosophical Studies 99:211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tennant, N. 1986. “The Withering Away of Formal Semantics?” Mind and Language 1:302–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tennant, N. 2002. The Taming of the True. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williamson, T. 1987. “On the Paradox of Knowability.” Mind 96:256–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williamson, T. 1992. “On Intuitionistic Modal Epistemic Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 21:63–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Louisiana State University Baton RougeBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations