Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-xh428 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T14:11:30.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proof, Knowledge, and Scepticism: Essays in Ancient Philosophy III By Jonathan BarnesOxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 720, £85, HB ISBN: 9780199577538

Review products

Proof, Knowledge, and Scepticism: Essays in Ancient Philosophy III By Jonathan BarnesOxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 720, £85, HB ISBN: 9780199577538

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Tamer Nawar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Reviews
Information
Philosophy , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 539 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 I have said more about these matters elsewhere. See Nawar, T., ‘Knowledge and True Belief at Theaetetus 201a–c’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (2013), 1052–1070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For recent discussion, see Duncombe, M., ‘Irreflexivity and Aristotle's Syllogismos’, The Philosophical Quarterly 64 (2014), 434–452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Deductive inferences, the thought goes, are not ampliative but, at best, merely explicative. They offer us knowledge which we already had under a different mode of our presentation but do not straightforwardly lead us to know new things. This, the thought goes, renders logic less than useful; hence, the ‘scandal of deduction’.