Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.522.x Byline: J.A. Burgess Abstract: A bstract I aim to show how and why some definitions can be benignly circular. According to Lloyd Humberstone, a definition that is analytically circular need not be inferentially circular and so might serve to illuminate the application-conditions for a concept. I begin by tidying up some problems with Humberstone's account. I then show that circular definitions of a kind commonly thought to be benign have inferentially circular truth-conditions and so are malign by Humberstone's test. But his test is too demanding. The inferences we actually use to establish the applicability of, e.g., colour concepts are designed to establish warranted assertability and not truth. Understood thus, dispositional analyses are not inferentially circular.

Concern about labelling of genetically modified food is reasonable and should include demands for intensive testing. No specific danger, however, has yet been associated with genetic modification, so trade in these goods need not be suspended.

Byline: J.A. Burgess (1), Adrian Walsh (2) Author Affiliation: (1) Department of Philosophy, University of Wollongong, Australia (2) Department of Philosophy, University of New England, Australia Article History: Registration Date: 30/09/2004