Here is a valid argument:
- (Premise) On the fine-grained view of events, if "A" and "B" are non-synonymous descriptions, then A's shining is distinct from B's shining.
- (Premise) If A is identical with B, then A's shining is identical with B's shining.
- (Premise) The morning star is identical with the evening star.
- (Premise) "Morning star" and "evening star" are non-synonymous descriptions.
- Therefore, the morning star's shining is identical with the evening star's shining. (2 and 3)
- Therefore, the fine-grained view of events is false. (1, 4 and 5)
2 comments:
What is the motivation leading people to accept (1)? Why would someone think this?
I am not familar with the fine-grained view of events.
Hi Alex,
Perhaps the following modification to your first premise will help the fine-grained advocate:
Instead of: (Premise) On the fine-grained view of events, if "A" and "B" are non-synonymous descriptions, then A's shining is distinct from B's shining.
We should have: if "A" and "B" are non-synonymous descriptions of events, then A's shining is distinct from B's shining.
The modified version does not appear to have the nasty consequence you draw from your original version.
Post a Comment