{"id":2477,"date":"2021-08-19T15:08:16","date_gmt":"2021-08-19T15:08:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2021\/08\/19\/validity-and-anaphora\/"},"modified":"2021-08-19T15:08:16","modified_gmt":"2021-08-19T15:08:16","slug":"validity-and-anaphora","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2021\/08\/19\/validity-and-anaphora\/","title":{"rendered":"Validity and Anaphora"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">The following argument appears valid:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Some deity is called &#39;Zeus.&#39;<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Zeus is wise.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Therefore, some deity called &#39;Zeus&#39; is wise. (D. E. Buckner, <em>Reference and Identity<\/em>, 118)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Now if an argument is valid, it is valid in virtue of its logical form.&#0160; What is the logical form of the above argument? The following argument-form, Buckner correctly states, is invalid:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Ex Fx<br \/>Ga<br \/>Ex (Fx &amp; Gx)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">So if the form just depicted is the only available form of the original argument, then the validity of the argument cannot be simply a matter of logical form. And this is what Buckner concludes: &quot;<\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">It is clearly the anaphoric connection between the premisses that makes the argument valid, but no such connection exists in the formalized version of the argument. &quot;(119)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Buckner seems to be arguing as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">a) The original argument is valid.&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">b) The only form it could possibly have is the one depicted above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">c) The argument-form depicted is plainly invalid.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">d) The validity of the original argument cannot be due to its logical form, but must be due to the anaphoric connection between its premises.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">I do not find this argument rationally compelling. (b) is rejectable.&#0160; I suggest that the original argument is an enthymeme the logical form of which is the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 13pt;\">1) For some x, x is called &#39;a.&#39;<br \/>2) For any x, if x is called &#39;a,&#39; then x =a.<br \/>3) a is G.<br \/>Therefore<br \/>4) For some x, (x is called &#39;a&#39; and x is G).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The following argument appears valid: Some deity is called &#39;Zeus.&#39;Zeus is wise.Therefore, some deity called &#39;Zeus&#39; is wise. (D. E. Buckner, Reference and Identity, 118) Now if an argument is valid, it is valid in virtue of its logical form.&#0160; What is the logical form of the above argument? The following argument-form, Buckner correctly states, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2021\/08\/19\/validity-and-anaphora\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Validity and Anaphora&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[563,108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anaphora","category-logica-docens"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}