Talk:Material inference

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

The example for Brandoms understanding

Has anybody noticed the stupidity and falsity of the example? An electromagnetic field has nothing to do with igniting a match, and neither the oxygen in the air. In the match is potassium chlorate, which is a strong oxidizing agent, and so there is no need for oxygen from the air in case of igniting at all. 146.52.75.123 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. I just took the text of the German translation (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, 2001, ISBN 3-518-29289-7), p.116, and paraphrased it closely in English. I don't have sufficient chemical knowledge to judge your argument. If you are sure about it, maybe you should add a note to the article. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly correct that a match does not require the presence of oxygen (that is, the gas, O2, which is one of the gases of the air "in the room") [1]. Unless more oxidizer is present along the length of the match, it will not continue to burn without oxygen. Joaquin Miller (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material and formal validity

I’m planning to add a chunk to the first section describing a formally valid but non-material inference. After reading the article as it stands to refresh my memory — it isn’t too technical, but does neglect the basics — I realized it didn’t include the information I wanted. I want to provide an example like: “The sky is blue therefore one plus one is two.” I’d go ahead and do it now, but I’d rather come back with references and after refreshing my memory. I’m worried I’m confusing relevance and materiality. 06:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC) PatrickR (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the (2nd sentence) lead is right, every formal valid inference is also materially valid, since the former is a special case of the latter. When writing it, I used my understanding of Brandom's book. But maybe Brandom's terminology deviates from others. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]