Comments on: “Single Premise Deduction and Risk” Maria Lasonen-Aarnio http://www.philosophersdigest.com/philosophical-studies/%e2%80%9csingle-premise-deduction-and-risk%e2%80%9d-maria-lasonen-aarnio Timely Reviews of Current Philosophy Articles Thu, 27 May 2010 16:34:12 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: walker http://www.philosophersdigest.com/philosophical-studies/%e2%80%9csingle-premise-deduction-and-risk%e2%80%9d-maria-lasonen-aarnio/comment-page-1#comment-92 walker Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:37:43 +0000 http://www.philosophersdigest.com/?p=560#comment-92 But isn't the "luck" which applies to MPC's simply different than the "deductive luck" you refer to as presenting a problem for SPCs? And further, it doesn't seem that there can be some kind of error in deductive logic. This kind of claim strikes me as similar to saying: "2+2=4, but the possibility of you saying 2+2=3 [you thought of one instead of two] means that deducing that two two's is four is vulnerable to the objection that some error must have occurred in our deduction. If the best thing we can conceive of as a possible "lucky" deductive event is a quantum occurrence in the deducer's brain, couldn't you just make a deduction twice or three times in order to discredit such arguments? But isn’t the “luck” which applies to MPC’s simply different than the “deductive luck” you refer to as presenting a problem for SPCs? And further, it doesn’t seem that there can be some kind of error in deductive logic. This kind of claim strikes me as similar to saying:

“2+2=4, but the possibility of you saying 2+2=3 [you thought of one instead of two] means that deducing that two two’s is four is vulnerable to the objection that some error must have occurred in our deduction. If the best thing we can conceive of as a possible “lucky” deductive event is a quantum occurrence in the deducer’s brain, couldn’t you just make a deduction twice or three times in order to discredit such arguments?

]]>