Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSeitz, Jeremy
dc.date.accessioned2010-01-05 20:52:01 (GMT)
dc.date.available2010-01-05 20:52:01 (GMT)
dc.date.issued2010-01-05T20:52:01Z
dc.date.submitted2009
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10012/4899
dc.description.abstractIn this thesis I discuss the problems associated with the epistemological task of arriving at basic logical knowledge. This is knowledge that the primitive rules of inference we use in deductive reasoning are correct. Knowledge of correctness, like all knowledge, is available to us either as the product of inference, or it is available non-inferentially. Success in the campaign to justify the correctness of these rules is mired by opposing views on how to do this properly. Inferential justifications of rules of inference, which are based on reasons, lead to regressive or circular results. Non-inferential justifications, based on something other than reasons, at first do not seem to fare any better: without a basis for these justifications, they appear arbitrary and unfounded. The works of Boghossian and Dummett who argue for an inferentialist approach, and Hale who supports non-inferentialism are carefully examined in this thesis. I conclude by finding superiority in Hale's suggestion that a particular set of basic logical constants are indispensable to deductive reasoning. I suggest that we endorse a principle which states that rules are not premises, and are therefore to be excluded from expression as statements in a deductive argument. I argue that the quality of being indispensable is sufficient for a basic rule of deduction to be countenanced as default-justified, and therefore need not be expressed in argument. By a rule's evading expression in argument, it avoids circular reasoning in deductive arguments about its own correctness. Another important outcome that emerges from my research is the finding that non-inferential knowledge is ontologically prior to the inferential sort. This is because plausible inferential knowledge of basic logical constants shall always be justified by circular reasoning that already assumes the correctness of the rule to be vindicated. This initial assumption is tantamount to non-inferential knowledge, and therefore this latter is more primitive-in fact the only primitive-species of basic logical knowledge.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherUniversity of Waterlooen
dc.subjectEpistemologyen
dc.subjectPhilosophy of Logicen
dc.subjectRules of Inferenceen
dc.subjectModus Ponensen
dc.subjectInferentialismen
dc.subjectNon-inferentialismen
dc.subjectTheories of Justificationen
dc.subjectTortoise & Achillesen
dc.subjectMichael Dummetten
dc.subjectBob Haleen
dc.titleFoundations of Deduction's Pedigree: A Non-Inferential Accounten
dc.typeMaster Thesisen
dc.pendingfalseen
dc.subject.programPhilosophyen
uws-etd.degree.departmentPhilosophyen
uws-etd.degreeMaster of Artsen
uws.typeOfResourceTexten
uws.peerReviewStatusUnrevieweden
uws.scholarLevelGraduateen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


UWSpace

University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883

All items in UWSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

DSpace software

Service outages