Robinson's thesis is that naturalists reject analyticity and a priority, and yet affirm deduction. This is inconsistent, for deduction involves necessity, something intelligible or accessible only by virtue of analyticity or by a priori intuition. But naturalists reject analyticity and a priority. Thus, to be consistent, they must either reject the necessity which makes deduction possible as a form of truth-preserving reasoning, or else, against their naturalism, affirm a priority or

more »

... . Since I think that, on the whole, Robinson is probably right, my comments will focus more on the presentation of the main ideas in the paper rather than their substance.