No Argument against the Continuity of Value
Reply to Dorsey
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12227960 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John Broome (0000-0002-9421-889X, University of Oxford, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 494-496 |
| Publication date | 2010-11-02 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Utilitas (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0953-8208 • E-ISSN: 1741-6183 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0953820810000373 |
| OpenAlex | W2103019836 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Dorsey rejects Conclusion, so he believes he must reject one of the premises. He argues that the best option is to reject Premise 3. Rejecting Premise 3 entails a certain sort of discontinuity in value. So Dorsey believes he has an argument for discontinuity
Argument (complex analysis · Arithmetic · Discontinuity (linguistics · Economics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Linguistics · Mathematical economics · Positive economics · Premise · sort · Statistics · Value (mathematics · Economic Theory and Institutions · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Mathematics · Medicine · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2017 - 2026 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |