Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Events

Here is a valid argument:

  1. (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.
  2. (Premise) If A is identical with B, then A's shining is identical with B's shining.
  3. (Premise) The morning star is identical with the evening star.
  4. (Premise) "Morning star" and "evening star" are non-synonymous descriptions.
  5. Therefore, the morning star's shining is identical with the evening star's shining. (2 and 3)
  6. Therefore, the fine-grained view of events is false. (1, 4 and 5)
The essential controversial premises are (1) and (2). (If (4) is challenged, the example can be easily changed.)

2 comments:

Andrew said...

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.

davida said...

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.