If the Policeman’s argument is only valid in the light of background assumptions, why
would they need to be stated? Surely we would only need to make the same tacit assumptions to agree with the conclusions. Everyday reasoning differs from formal
logic in various ways, and mainly because it takes short cuts. I don’t think that invalidates
it.
If the Policeman’s argument is only valid in the light of background assumptions, why would they need to be stated? Surely we would only need to make the same tacit assumptions to agree with the conclusions. Everyday reasoning differs from formal logic in various ways, and mainly because it takes short cuts. I don’t think that invalidates it.