How does extracting conclusions from a set of premises contribute to its relevance?
When participants are presented with a specific question (e.g. “Which of Pete, Bill and John is the best?”), the premises are typically relevant to them by allowing them to deduce the requested answer. However, when participants are asked “What, if anything, follows?”, it is less clear why and, and in what way, they should go beyond restating the premises. Their answer might demonstrate that they have understood the potential relevance of the premises for further reasoning, but then a puzzle arises. How can deductively deriving a conclusion and adding it to, or substituting it for, an initial set of premises yield a more relevant point of departure for further reasoning, given that nothing can be derived from this conclusion that wasn’t already derivable from the initial premises? Here is the answer. A set of premises with some deductively derived conclusion added cannot be more relevant than the initial set on the effect side, but it can be more relevant on the effort side. If the ini
Related Questions
- Rateable Value Q: A premises has 50% of their rateable value waived as a charitable organisation. How should the applicant calculate the rateable value of the premises for conversion purposes?
- CAN PURELY NATURALISTIC PREMISES BE ACCEPTED WITH OUT COMING TO PURELY NATURALISTIC CONCLUSIONS?
- New Premises Licence Q: When can applications for new premises licences be submitted?
