PhilArchive
open access
A built-in objection against if-I-were-a-horse argument
Max Gluckman introduces us to if-I-were-a-horse arguments, but what is wrong with them? In this paper, I draw attention to an objection built-in to the terminology.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- 29 U.S.C. § 1662 — Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, § 199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059#583881
- 42 U.S.C. § 300e-4a — Repealed. Pub. L. 99–660, title VIII, § 805(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3800#594841
- 16 U.S.C. § 3801 — Definitions#568554
- Review of “Against Indifference Objections to the Fine-Tuning Argument”#108460
- 15 U.S.C. § 1332 — Definitions#566750
Record · ID 701377
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive