# David Corfield inferences

## Idea

Give examples of inferences in natural language where the grammar allows regular valid steps, but it’s not an overt logical truth.

When is it a question of rewriting, sugaring, and when is it part of Sellars-Brandom material inference?

E.g.,

1. It is raining and today is Tuesday. Therefore, today is Tuesday. Clearly logical.

2. The dog is brown and quick. Therefore the dog is quick. Surely logical.

3. That man lives in the house. Therefore the house is occupied. Material? And yet it’s just a rewriting of forming the bracket type.

## Examples

A: Type, a: A, then $\vert a \vert: \vert \vert A \vert \vert$, or $\vert \vert A \vert \vert$ is true.