This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Davidson's proof that p: Let us make the following bold conjecture: p Wallace's proof that p: Davidson has made the following bold conjecture: p Grunbaum: As I have asserted again and again in previous publications, p. Putnam: Some philosophers have argued that not-p, on the grounds that q. It would be an interesting exercise to count all the fallacies in this "argument". (It's really awful, isn't it?) Therefore p. Rawls: It would be nice to have a deductive argument that p from selfevident premises. Unfortunately I am unable to provide one. So I will have to rest content with the following intuitive considerations in its support: p. Unger: Suppose it were the case that not-p. It would follow from this that someone knows that q. But on my view, no one knows anything whatsoever. Therefore p. (Unger believes that the louder you say this argument, the more persuasive it becomes). Katz: I have seventeen arguments for the claim that p, and I know of only four for the claim that not-p. Therefore p. Lewis: Most people find the claim that not-p completely obvious and when I assert p they give me an incredulous stare. But the fact that they find not- p obvious is no argument that it is true; and I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare. Therefore, p. Fodor: My argument for p is based on three premises: 1. q 2. r and 3. p From these, the claim that p deductively follows. Some people may find the third premise controversial, but it is clear that if we replaced that premise by any other reasonable premise, the argument would go through just as well. Sellars' proof that p:
Unfortunately limitations of space prevent it from being included here. I hope to expand on these matters further in a separate monograph. I cannot be held responsible for any lacunae in the (published version of the) argument. all such criticisms misconstrue my argument.called "counterexamples" depend on construing my thesis that pin a way that it was obviously not intended -. . It will be noted that the present version of the argument seems to presuppose the (intuitionistically unacceptable) law of double negation. _________________ (1) This outline was prepared hastily -. Earman: There are solutions to the field equations of general relativity in which space-time has the structure of a four. Goodman: Zabludowski has insinuated that my thesis that p is false. then there is a model for p. Plantinga: It is a model theorem that p -> p. on the basis of alleged counterexamples. But none of them seems to me to have made a convincing argument against the intuitive view that this is not the case.at the editor's insistence -from a taped manuscript of a lecture. Outline Of A Proof That P (1): Saul Kripke Some philosophers have argued that not-p. . the argument now seems to me to have problems which I did not know when I wrote it. Therefore p. But the argument can easily be reformulated in a way that avoids employing such an inference rule. and which are completely unrelated to any criticisms that have appeared in the literature (or that I have seen in manuscript). Therefore p. Also. Therefore p. p. Therefore. Therefore p. In each such space-time.dimensional Klein bottle and in which there is no matter. Surely its possible that p must be true. But these so. but which I can't discuss here. Thus p. But it is a model theorem that p -> p.for I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. but important parts of the proof can be found in each of the articles in the attached bibliography. the claim that not-p is false. or for any fallacious or garbled inferences resulting from faulty preparation of the typescript. Routley and Meyer: If (q & not-q) is true. Since I was not even given the opportunity to revise the first draft before publication.
Plato: SOCRATES: Is it not true that p? GLAUCON: I agree. Churchland: Certain of my opponents claim to think that not-‐p. may nevertheless be adhered to by a scientist for any length of time. ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way. PHAEDO: By all means. If this state of affairs does not obtain then it is less than perfect. PHAEDRUS: What you say is true. ALCIBIADES: Certainly. but it is precisely my thesis that they do not. Socrates. heliocentrism. Therefore p. For did not the most "absurd" of theories. for an obtaining state of affairs is better than a non-‐obtaining one. ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly. if we are to be consistent. and "rationally" adhered to. stage a come-‐back after two thousand years? And is not Voodoo now emerging from a long period of unmerited neglect? Goldman: Several critics have put forward purported "counterexamples" to my thesis that p. THRASYMACHUS: Yes.Chisholm: P-ness is self-presenting. Socrates. since I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p. Therefore. so the state of affairs inconsistent with not-‐p obtains. CEPHALUS: It would seem so. etc. what? q maybe? More Proofs that P Anselm: I can entertain an idea of the most perfect state of affairs inconsistent with not-‐p. Feyerabend: The theory p. though "refuted" by the anomaly q and a thousand others. . Socrates. PAUSANIAS: Quite so. p. therefore it is proved. but all of these critics have understood my thesis in a way that was clearly not intended. Morganbesser: If not p. POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
Not-P entails that there are sense-data. Only philosophers would think that not-P.. Therefore P. I won't even waste my time arguing for it any further. some philosophers feel curiously compelled to assert that not-‐p. [Galen Strawson. and several by people who aren't. [various] 5. See my ". I know that P is true because I teach it to my undergraduates. Therefore P. [Bill Lycan] MORE PROOFS THAT P . I shall label this phenomenon "the blithering idiot effect". Representationalism entails P & not-P. [Charles Siewert. [Brian Loar] 3. Not-P is true from the transparent perspective. Aaron Zimmerman] 6. are due to the blithering idiot effect. Therefore P. with attributions to arguer added). [various] 7. there remains no reason to deny p. Therefore P. While everyone knows deep down that p. But I take the oblique perspective. Therefore P & not-P. others] 2. [Bill Lycan] 9. P is a bold and controversial claim that shatters common-sense intuition. [various] 4. TOP TEN ARGUMENTS FOR P HEARD AT THE NEH INSTITUTE (T-shirt list. Therefore P. Therefore P. You don't think that phenomenology supports that P? Look haaaarder! Therefore P. [Brian Loar] 8.Smart: Stove: Dammit all! p. 1." where I argued for P. Therefore P. which everyone knows deep down anyway.. as a result of being closet Marxists. Therefore P. As I have shown that all assertions of not-‐p by anyone worth speaking of. [John Searle] 10. It's completely implausible and a violation of common-sense intuition to think that not-P. To think that not-P is to over-intellectualize.
Therefore P. I'm beginning to lose my grip on what it means to say that not-P. Therefore P. Therefore P. Therefore P. [Charles Siewert] . [Susan Hurley] P gives me an "aha!" reaction. [David Chalmers] Now that I've taken you on this little journey. Therefore P. [by Amy Schmitter. I went surfing. [Brad Thompson] I have a lot of arguments for P. Therefore P. But I just called them "the folk". Sellars argues that not-P. [Galen Strawson] The argument for not-P has seven steps. [Susan Hurley] Someday someone might discover that P. [Susanna Siegel] Not-P? That just doesn't work for me. attributed to unnamed presenter] The folk think that not-P. Therefore P. [attributed to Frank Jackson] P* and representationalism holds. (Actually. [by Becko Copenhaver. and I'm way too old for that. Therefore P.) Therefore P. Therefore P. [Amy Schmitter] I'm tired. attributed to unnamed presenter. therefore P&~P. though none of them are very good. [John Searle] I've considered and rejected one possible defense of a key premise in one possible argument for not-P. [Frank Jackson] Sellars has established to McDowell's and my satisfaction that P. but that was wearing his black hat. [Bob Brandom] Sellars argues that P. Therefore P.No amount of tub-thumping by dualists (including my past self) carries any weight in establishing that not-P. and I want to get the credit. [Bob Brandom] Most philosophers think it is a priori that not-P. Therefore P.] These considerations tend to suggest something in the vicinity of the ballpark of P. [Colin McGinn] Anyone who says that not-P is using the terms differently from me. Therefore P. Therefore P. Therefore P.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?