Login | Register

Against Boghossian, Wright and Broome on Inference


Against Boghossian, Wright and Broome on Inference

Hlobil, Ulf (2014) Against Boghossian, Wright and Broome on Inference. Philosophical Studies, 167 (2). pp. 419-429.

[thumbnail of HLOABW.1.pdf]
Text (application/pdf)
HLOABW.1.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0104-z


I argue that the accounts of inference recently presented (in this journal) by Paul Boghossian, John Broome, and Crispin Wright are unsatisfactory. I proceed in two steps: First, in Sects. 1 and 2, I argue that we should not accept what Boghossian calls the “Taking Condition on inference” as a condition of adequacy for accounts of inference. I present a different condition of adequacy and argue that it is superior to the one offered by Boghossian. More precisely, I point out that there is an analog of Moore’s Paradox for inference; and I suggest that explaining this phenomenon is a condition of adequacy for accounts of inference. Boghossian’s Taking Condition derives its plausibility from the fact that it apparently explains the analog of Moore’s Paradox. Second, in Sect. 3, I show that neither Boghossian’s, nor Broome’s, nor Wright’s account of inference meets my condition of adequacy. I distinguish two kinds of mistake one is likely to make if one does not focus on my condition of adequacy; and I argue that all three—Boghossian, Broome, and Wright—make at least one of these mistakes.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Philosophy
Item Type:Article
Authors:Hlobil, Ulf
Journal or Publication:Philosophical Studies
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1007/s11098-013-0104-z
Keywords:Inference; Reasoning; Moore’s Paradox; Boghossian; Broome; Wright;
ID Code:983498
Deposited By: ULF HLOBIL
Deposited On:08 Feb 2018 15:00
Last Modified:08 Feb 2018 15:00


Anscombe, G. E. M. (2000). Intention (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Boghossian, P. A. (2003). Blind reasoning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 77(1), 225–248.

Boghossian, P. A. (2012). What is inference? Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-012-9903-x.

Broome, J. (2012). Comments on Boghossian. Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-012-9894-7.

Harman, G. H. (1986). Change in view: principles of reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sellars, W. (1973). Actions and events. Noûs, 7(2), 179–202.

Wright, C. (2012). Comment on Paul Boghossian, “The nature of inference”. Philosophical Studies, doi: 10.1007/s11098-012-9892-9.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top