|Appears in Collections:||Law and Philosophy Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Rohbraugh and deRosset on the Necessity of Origin|
|Keywords:||Necessity of Origin|
|Publisher:||Oxford University Press|
|Citation:||Cameron R & Roca-Royes S (2006) Rohbraugh and deRosset on the Necessity of Origin, Mind, 115 (458), pp. 361-366.|
|Abstract:||In ‘A New Route to the Necessity of Origin’, Rohbraugh and deRosset oﬀer an argu-ment for the Necessity of Origin appealing neither to Suﬃciency of Origin nor to abranching-times model of necessity. What is doing the crucial work in their argu-ment is instead the thesis they name ‘Locality of Prevention’. In this response, we ob-ject that their argument is question-begging by showing, ﬁrst, that the locality ofprevention thesis is not strong enough to satisfactorily derive from it the intendedconclusion, and, second, that the argument is not sound unless the Necessity of Origin is operating as an implicit premiss.|
|Rights:||Published in Mind by Oxford University Press. This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Mind following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version, Mind 2006 115(458):361-366, is available online at: http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/458/361|
|Affiliation:||University of St Andrews|
|Cameron&Roca_NecessityOrigin.pdf||218.4 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.