[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Craig, previously] > http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html > > Carroll satirizes the view that inference rules are premises. [Steve] 
> I think he was satirizing the notion that any conclusion whatsoever
> can be forced from a set of premises. 


But this as usual misses the point. Sure someone can balk at a valid 
argument with an "is" conclusion, just as they can at one with a "ought" 
conclusion. 
But there are an infinite number of valid arguments with an "is" 
conclusion & "is" premises, but the question remains whether there are 
any valid arguments with an "ought" conclusion & only "is" premises. 
Craig