[lit-ideas] Re: Patty Duke & The Apriori [part 2of 2]

Walter wrote


I was raised to believe in the truth of the general idea that an explanation of
P does not provide a justification of P. One must already believe state of
affairs P has occurred in order to ask for an explanation of P, but the concept
of an argument disallows already believing the conclusion prior to the provision
of premises (unless one is a professional politician or lawyer, of course.) Thus
the explicandum is not a conclusion, and the explicans is not a reason,
according to the requirements of the space of reasons.
I'm not sure I understand this. How does the 'concept' of an argument [disallow] already believing the conclusion before providing the premises that support it? This seems exactly backwards. Premises are premises in an argument to a certain conclusion, and that conclusion must be set forth before there can be any premises. First the crime and then the clue; a footprint isn't a clue until what it's a clue OF is specified. 

Are you lost daddy I arsked tenderly.

Shut up he explained.

—Ring Lardner, The Young Immigrunts

Robert Paul,
feeling the heat, somewhere south of Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: