A reply to professor Wheatley

Philosophy of Science 28 (1):55-64 (1961)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I am grateful to Professor Wheatley for his note, [3], on my analysis of interrogatives, [1]. His comments bring out very clearly a number of considerations that deserve our closest attention. For example, he shows that if we can classify interrogatives as true and false—as I proposed to do—then we can properly inquire about what sentences contradict them, and what sentences are contingently or logically equivalent to them. Furthermore, he shows that, on my analysis, no indirect question can contradict any other indirect question and he accordingly, and correctly, looks for such contradictories among declarative sentences. Finally, he notes, [3], p. 54, that in my article, I have treated only inquisitive questions and have said nothing about deliberative or practical questions. While practical questions demand a different kind of treatment than that which Wheatley speculatively, albeit very tentatively, extrapolates for me, still these questions do form a kind of interrogative that did not get any attention in my article.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,561

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
60 (#345,189)

6 months
12 (#269,036)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Questions aren't statements.C. L. Hamblin - 1963 - Philosophy of Science 30 (1):62-63.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Interrogatives, imperatives, truth, falsity and lies.Henry S. Leonard - 1959 - Philosophy of Science 26 (3):172-186.
Principles of Right Reason.Henry S. Leonard - 1958 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 23 (4):435-436.

Add more references