(…) Secondly, it transgresses the bounds of sense. For in many cases the explanation for the fact that this statement (rule, formula, etc.) justifies acting thus is that this connection is part of the concept of justification. When, for example, I justify the claim that 68 X 57 = 3876 by producing the calculation:
68
57 x
____
3400
476
____
3876then the proper reply tho the question “What justifies taking this calculation as a justification (proof) of that equality?” is surely, “Such calculations are what is called ‘justification’ in respect of such arithmetical equations”. Somebody who queries this connection does not exhibit an admirable caution about jumping to conclusions but rather betrays lack of grasp of the concept of justification. Here there is no such thing as justifying taking one thing to justify another. (…) For there is no such thing as justifying grammatical, conceptual connections by reference to reality. Absence of justification here does not betoken absense of something that could be present but is not. Hence it is no defect.
Hacker, Sceptiscim, Rules and Language.
Não se preocupem caso não entendam, é para meu próprio uso.
