Regarding the Stove argument you quote, I read the symbol (d) as referring to the major premise only, thus getting:
“If A and B are true, and C is claimed to follow from them jointly but is false, then C does not follow from A and B.” This principle is a universally true statement for all deductive arguments, according to formal logic. This is therefore a true major premise (called (d) by Stove).
“The preceding principle (i.e. (d)) is false” is therefore surely FALSE by formal logic. This is therefore a false minor premise by Stove.
It follows that we cannot even suppose the “The preceding principle (i.e. (d)) is false” to be true, and no paradox or logical problem of any sort arises. Stove’s ‘conclusion’ is thus worthless.
(Note in passing that Stove uses the terms valid/invalid instead of true/false, showing that the does not even clearly know the distinction between these concepts.)
But reading your analysis, it is evident that you probably have pinned down more precisely what he was up to - sowing confusion between the whole argument and the mere major premise thereof, making his minor premise a sort of self-reference. I suspect that Stove is not consciously engaging in sophistry, but is merely too unintelligent to see the errors he commits.
I agree with your assessment of him: "Looking at Stove's articles and books, he is a very negative philosopher who seems to be content to criticize others; as far as I can see he hasn't produced any original work". I wonder if he deserves to be called a "philosopher" - he is obviously a hater rather than a lover of wisdom.
As for the word entailment, I admit that I use it occasionally as a weaker term than implication. Perhaps we should say entailment when dealing with inductive (probabilistic) 'implication', so as to distinguish this from deductive (100% firm) implication.
Something about you (optional) logician-philosopher
