[ithinkso]

> (The arrow functions iconically: there is an informal logical path from A to B. It does not denote formal implication.)

> In other words, how far has one to analyse a claim of the form 'from property A, B follows' before assenting to it depends on the agent.

Or just prove the implication instead of inventing 'informal logical paths'

[cubefox]

The "informal logical path" proves the informal implication, but what counts as a proof of this implication here can be agent dependent. If we talk about proving formal implication, then we have still the problem of deduction[1][2][3]. In short, natural language doesn't distinguish between "inference rules" and expressing this rule in a sentence and using it as a premiss. Which leads to an infinite regress, unless the agent just stops at some point, unlike the tortoise in Carroll's story.

[1] https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/IV.14.278 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achi... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2253263