命令:

Critical Hours Pub Date : 2018-04-03 DOI:10.1201/9780203496213.ch30

Olaf Musch

{"title":"命令:","authors":"Olaf Musch","doi":"10.1201/9780203496213.ch30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An argument is usually said to be valid iff it is truth-preserving—iff it cannot be that all its premises are true and its conclusion false. But imperatives (it is normally thought) are not truth-apt. They are not in the business of saying how the world is, and therefore cannot either succeed or fail in doing so. To solve this problem, we need to ﬁnd a new criterion of validity, and I aim to propose such a criterion.","PeriodicalId":415751,"journal":{"name":"Critical Hours","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMMAND:\",\"authors\":\"Olaf Musch\",\"doi\":\"10.1201/9780203496213.ch30\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An argument is usually said to be valid iff it is truth-preserving—iff it cannot be that all its premises are true and its conclusion false. But imperatives (it is normally thought) are not truth-apt. They are not in the business of saying how the world is, and therefore cannot either succeed or fail in doing so. To solve this problem, we need to ﬁnd a new criterion of validity, and I aim to propose such a criterion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":415751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Hours\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Hours\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203496213.ch30\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Hours","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203496213.ch30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

一个论点通常被认为是有效的，如果它是保真的——如果它不可能所有的前提都为真而结论为假。但是命令(人们通常认为)是不符合事实的。他们的工作不是说世界是怎样的，因此在这样做时既不能成功也不能失败。为了解决这个问题，我们需要找到一个新的有效性标准，我的目标是提出这样一个标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

COMMAND:

An argument is usually said to be valid iff it is truth-preserving—iff it cannot be that all its premises are true and its conclusion false. But imperatives (it is normally thought) are not truth-apt. They are not in the business of saying how the world is, and therefore cannot either succeed or fail in doing so. To solve this problem, we need to ﬁnd a new criterion of validity, and I aim to propose such a criterion.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Critical Hours

自引率

0.00%

发文量