643 0

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author최원배-
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-26T08:16:42Z-
dc.date.available2018-04-26T08:16:42Z-
dc.date.issued2013-12-
dc.identifier.citation철학적 분석(Philosophical analysis), Vol.- No.28 [2013], 55-77(23쪽)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1598-9275-
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001830911-
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/70862-
dc.description.abstractOur notion of validity in classical logic seems to yield some unintuitive results, one of which is that known as EFQ, ex falso quodlibet. In this paper I examine Read’s solution to EFQ. Read argues that some rules of inference such as addition or disjunctive syllogism are not valid. I show that he does not succeed in establishing the invalidity of those rules.en_US
dc.language.isoko_KRen_US
dc.publisher한국분석철학회(The Korean Society of Analytic Philosopy)en_US
dc.subjectEFQen_US
dc.subject선언 삼단논법en_US
dc.subject선언 도입en_US
dc.subject타당성en_US
dc.subject리드en_US
dc.subjectEFQen_US
dc.subjectdisjunctive syllogismen_US
dc.subjectdisjunction introductionen_US
dc.subjectvalidityen_US
dc.subjectReaden_US
dc.title타당성, EFQ, 그리고 리드의 해결책en_US
dc.title.alternativeValidity, EFQ, and Read’s Solutionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.no28-
dc.relation.page55-77-
dc.relation.journal철학적 분석-
dc.contributor.googleauthor최원배-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChoi, Wonbae-
dc.relation.code2012213953-
dc.sector.campusS-
dc.sector.daehakCOLLEGE OF POLICY SCIENCE[S]-
dc.sector.departmentDEPARTMENT OF POLICY STUDIES-
dc.identifier.pidchoiwb-
Appears in Collections:
COLLEGE OF POLICY SCIENCE[S](정책과학대학) > POLICY STUDIES(정책학과) > Articles
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE