From fc313ee5745d6660413949bb7301c06d20d92abc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jacob Walchuk Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:48:07 -0700 Subject: paper 2: graphics fixed (Ds and Fs ital'd, sorites items bolded) --- papers/3.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'papers/3.tex') diff --git a/papers/3.tex b/papers/3.tex index efbc913..a4ba95e 100644 --- a/papers/3.tex +++ b/papers/3.tex @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ Thus, overall, while AH response is a good substantive explanation answering the In this paper, I have examined three responses to Williamson's Explanation Challenge and argued that each response faces their own problems. While I argue for the stronger conclusion that the first two challenges fail, I argue for the weaker conclusion that the last response succeeds but only with additional dialectical cost to contingentism. I hope this paper has helped to clarify the stake of Williamson's ``first horn" to contingentism in Chapter 6 and strengthen his argument against contingentism. \section{Appendix} - +\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0pt} \subsection{The proof for (Tracking)} First, we can observe the following proof: \\ \begin{quote} -- cgit v1.2.3