Document Type

Paper

Start Date

15-5-1999 9:00 AM

End Date

17-5-1999 5:00 PM

Abstract

Expressing a widely-held view, Hitchcock claims that "an enthymematic argument ... assumes at least the truth of the argument's associated conditional ... whose antecedent is the conjunction of the argument's explicit premises and whose consequent is t he argument's conclusion." But even definitionally, this view is problematic, since an argument's being enthymematic or incomplete with respect to its explicit premises means that the conclusion is not implied by these premises alone. The paper attempts to specify the ways in which the view is incorrect, as well as correct (e.g., the case of a modus ponens wherein the major premise is implicit).

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Response to Submission

David Hitchcock, Commentary on Plumer

Reader's Reactions

Leo Groarke, Commentary on Allan (May 1999)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 15th, 9:00 AM May 17th, 5:00 PM

The paradoxical associated conditional of enthymemes

Expressing a widely-held view, Hitchcock claims that "an enthymematic argument ... assumes at least the truth of the argument's associated conditional ... whose antecedent is the conjunction of the argument's explicit premises and whose consequent is t he argument's conclusion." But even definitionally, this view is problematic, since an argument's being enthymematic or incomplete with respect to its explicit premises means that the conclusion is not implied by these premises alone. The paper attempts to specify the ways in which the view is incorrect, as well as correct (e.g., the case of a modus ponens wherein the major premise is implicit).