[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Craig, previously] 
[P1] Socrates is a man. 
[P2] A man is mortal. 
[C1] :.Socrates is mortal. 

[Steve] 
> What you ought to conclude is what the inference rules are 
> prescribing. 

Yes, but again this misses the point.  It is not the TRUTH of an 
"ought" statement that is at issue, but whether it FOLLOWS 
from a set of only "is" premises. 

[Craig, previously] 
> The inference rule states that if each premise IS true, then the conclusion 
> also IS true. 

[Steve]  
> Aren't rules sorts of "oughts"? 

I don't see an "ought" only "ises". 

[Steve] 
> I think such rules really ARE premises that are taken for granted with out stating them 
> as such. 

Did you take the antidote @ 
http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html 


Craig