Read on relevance: a rejoinder

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 25 (3):217-223 (1984)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,486

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Reply to Burgess and to Read.Chris Mortensen - 1986 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27 (2):195-200.
Burgess on relevance: a fallacy indeed.Stephen Read - 1983 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 24 (4):473-481.
Editorial Thanks to Burgess.[author unknown] - 1994 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35 (1):159-159.
Review of John P. Burgess, Philosophical Logic[REVIEW]Alasdair Urquhart - 2009 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2009 (10).
Trees and finite satisfiability: proof of a conjecture of Burgess.George Boolos - 1984 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 25 (3):193-197.
Relevance and conformity.Harry Deutsch - 1985 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 26 (4):455-462.
Relevance: a fallacy?John P. Burgess - 1981 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 22 (2):97-104.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
41 (#582,892)

6 months
12 (#239,387)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Burgess
Princeton University

Citations of this work

Implicational paradoxes and the meaning of logical constants.Francesco Paoli - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):553 – 579.
A plea for KR.Alison Duncan Kerr - 2019 - Synthese 198 (4):3047-3071.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references