« "We Are All Immigrants" | Main | Mark Steyn on Borders »

Monday, September 11, 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

>> As for the first, suppose we rewrite it by replacing 'so-called' with an equivalent expression. [My emphasis]
Nice try, but the expression, ‘so called’, while equivalent in the major, is not equivalent in the conclusion.

Phosphorus is so-called because it appears in the evening.
means
Phosphorus is called ‘Phosphorus’ because it appears in the evening.
not
Phosphorus is called 'Hesperus' because it appears in the evening.
The first argument is invalid because of the equivocation on ‘so-called’. So I repeat, why might there not be a similar equivocation in the ‘designates’ argument?

REWRITE is valid, but it is not the correct rewriting of the first argument. The phrase 'so-called' should be replaced differently in the premise and in the conclusion.

REWRITE 1:

Hesperus is called 'Hesperus' because it appears in the evening
Hesperus = Phosphorus
-------------
Phosphorus is called 'Phosphorus' because it appears in the evening.

This is not a valid argument.

Sorry for my inattentiveness to The London Ostrich's comment. It says the same thing.

And what is the equivocation in the second argument? Is it on 'designates'?

>>Sorry for my inattentiveness to The London Ostrich's comment. It says the same thing.

And I agree with Valeriu.

>>And what is the equivocation in the second argument? Is it on 'designates'?

Yes. Or rather on the construction 'designates X'

You need to tell us what the nature of the equivocation is. What meaning does 'designate' have in the major, and what different meaning does it have in the conclusion?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Google Search Engine

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad