# PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE OVERVIEW LOGICAL CONSTANTS WEEK 5: MODEL-THEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE OVERVIEW LOGICAL CONSTANTS WEEK 5: MODEL-THEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH"

Transcription

1 PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE WEEK 5: MODEL-THEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH OVERVIEW Last week, I discussed various strands of thought about the concept of LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE, introducing Tarski's MODEL-THEORETIC account. This is the view that a conclusion is a logical consequence of a set of premises IFF there is no MODEL in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. This week, we'll look in a bit of detail at two problems for this account, the problem of LOGICAL CONSTANTS and some influential objections raised by John Etchemendy. LOGICAL CONSTANTS Last week, we wondered about the difference between the following two arguments: ARGUMENT 1 1. Everyone smokes and everyone drinks 2. So, everyone smokes and drinks ARGUMENT 4 1. John is a bachelor 2. So, John is not married

2 On formal accounts, such as Tarski's, this is explained in terms of a difference between the logical forms of the two expressions. Roughly, the logical form of an argument is what we obtain by replacing its non-logical expressions with schematic letters. The idea is then that, in the case of ARGUMENT 4, there is a way of replacing these schematic letters, or assigning them meanings, such that the result is not truth-preserving. By contrast, in the case of ARGUMENT 1, there is not a way of replacing the schematic letters, or assigning them meanings, such that the result is not truth-preserving. This assumes that the words 'bachelor' and 'married' are non-logical, with the result that the logical form of ARGUMENT 4 is: 1. a is a F 2. So, a is not G But why not assume instead that they are logical expressions, with the result that the logical form of ARGUMENT 4 is: 1. a is a bachelor 2. So, a is not married? This is the problem of LOGICAL CONSTANTS: how are logical expressions or constants to be distinguished from nonlogical ones?

3 Early on, Tarski seemed to have held that there was no principled distinction to be drawn, and that the choice of logical constants was largely pragmatic. Later on, in work with Steven Givant, he took a more optimistic view. I'll sketch this view today, and look at an alternative solution next week. PERMUTATION INVARIANCE The central thought behind Tarski's later work is that logical expressions do not DISCRIMINATE between different objects or individual. This is a version of the idea, mentioned briefly last week, that logic is TOPIC-NEUTRAL, applying to any subject matter whatsoever. More precisely, Tarski's idea is that the logical expressions are those that are invariant under arbitrary permutations of the domain of objects. A PERMUTATION of a domain D of objects is a one-to-one mapping from D onto D. For example, suppose our domain is the set of 21st century US presidents, {George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump}. The permutations of the domain include: PERMUTATION 1 George W. Bush Barack Obama Barack Obama Donald Trump Donald Trump George W. Bush PERMUTATION 2 George W. Bush Donald Trump Barack Obama Barack Obama Donald Trump George W. Bush

4 Given the notion of a permutation, we can introduce the notion of INVARIANCE under a permutation of a domain. First, an object or individual O in the domain is invariant under a permutation of that domain IFF the object to which that permutation maps O is O itself. Thus, none of the individuals in our domain is invariant under PERMUTATION 1, though Barack Obama is invariant under PERMUTATION 2. Second, a set S of objects in the domain is invariant under a permutation of that domain IFF the set of objects to which that permutation maps the members of S is S itself So the set of 21st century Republican presidents, {George W. Bush, Donald Trump}, is invariant under PERMUTATION 2, but not PERMUTATION 1. Third, an ordered n-tuple T of objects in the domain is invariant under a permutation of that domain IFF the ordered n-tuple of objects to which that permutation maps the members of T is T itself. So the ordered pair <Barack Obama, Barack Obama> is invariant under PERMUTATION 2, but not PERMUTATION 1. This gives us a handle on a sense in which the sorts of entities that serve as the EXTENSIONS of expressions in a domain may be invariant under permutations of that domain. We can then say that an expression is LOGICAL IFF its extension in each domain (meaning what it does) is invariant under all permutations of that domain.

5 To see how this works, consider the name 'John'. Its extension in any given domain is an object which generally won't be invariant under permutations of the domain. Similarly, the extension of the predicate 'is a bachelor' in any given domain is a subset of the domain, and also generally won't be invariant under permutations of the domain. By contrast, the extension of the predicate 'is an object' in any given domain is the domain itself, which is invariant under permutations of the domain. Similarly, the extension of the predicate 'is not an object' in any given domain is the empty set, which is also invariant under permutations of the domain. So the name 'John' and predicate 'is a bachelor' come out as non-logical, while the predicates 'is an object' and 'is not an object' come out as logical. What about connectives and quantifiers? We can think of their extensions as functions from n-tuples of sets of variable assignment to sets of variable assignments. The extension of 'and' in a domain, for example, will be the function that maps each pair of sets S1 and S2 of variable assignments over that domain to their intersection, S1 S2. And the extension of 'some object' in a domain will be the function that maps each set of variable assignments S over that domain to the set of variable assignments that differ at most in x from some variable assignment in S. Each of these functions is also invariant under permutations of the domain. The extensions of 'and' and 'some object' are thus also invariant under permutations of the domain.

6 PROBLEMS Permutation Invariance is not without its problems, however. I'll mention just two of them. PROBLEM 1: if no two objects have exactly the same mass, the extension of 'has exactly the same mass as' in a domain will be the same as 'is identical to'. Moreover, this extension is invariant under permutations of the domain. So both expressions turn out to be logical. But should the distinction between logical and nonlogical expressions turn on matters of contingent fact, such as whether any two objects have exactly the same mass? It is tempting to try to fix this by appealing to metaphysically or even conceptually possible domains. But that won't help fix... PROBLEM 2: the extension of the predicate 'is a married bachelor' in any given domain is the empty set. But as we have already seen, the empty set is always invariant under permutations of the domain. So 'is a married bachelor' comes out as logical! ETCHEMENDY'S OBJECTIONS John Etchemendy famously offers two objections designed to show that the model-theoretic account of logical consequence is theoretically inadequate.

7 CONCEPTUAL ADEQUACY The first objection is that the model-theoretic account of logical consequence is CONCEPTUALLY inadequate. On the model-theoretic account, remember, an argument is logically valid IFF there are no models in which its premises are true and its conclusion is false. According to Etchemendy, this leaves something essential out of account: the logical validity of an argument provides a GUARANTEE that the argument is truth-preserving. It perhaps follows from the fact that an argument is logically valid that there are no models in which its premises are true and its conclusion is false. (Though Etchemendy in fact disputes this: this is the UNDERGENERATION problem, which I will mention briefly below.) But its logical validity does not consist in there being no models in which its premises are true and its conclusion is false. According to Etchemendy, the model-theoretic account of logical consequence thus makes a mistake akin to that of mistaking the symptoms of a disease for the disease itself. In order to defend the model-theoretic account of logical consequence, we might try any of the following three strategies. FIRST, we could try to deny that the logical validity of an argument provides the sort of guarantee that Etchemendy claims it does.

8 Etchemendy seems to think that logical validity provides some sort of conceptual or a priori warrant for the belief that the argument is truth-preserving. In other words: if an argument is logically valid, and one understands the premises and conclusion, then one is in a position to know that the conclusion is true if the premises are true. But while this is plausible in the case of many logically valid arguments, it is not obviously true in every case. (Think of long, complicated proofs.) SECOND, we could try to argue that the model-theoretic account captures the guarantee in question. For example, suppose that we grant that it is part of the concept of logical validity that a logically valid argument is truth-preserving in all possible worlds. We might then try to argue that the model-theoretic account captures this, on the grounds that claims about the existence of models are modal claims. See, e.g., Gila Sher (1996). THIRD, we could accept that logical validity provides some sort of guarantee, and that the model-theoretic account doesn't capture this, but deny that it matters. On this view, the point of the model-theoretic account is not to give a CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS of the concept of logical consequence. Rather, it is to provide a theoretically useful refinement of a certain pre-theoretic notion. (Compare: the difference between the concepts of recursive and computable functions.)

9 EXTENSIONAL ADEQUACY Etchemendy's second objection is that the model-theoretic account of logical consequence is EXTENSIONALLY inadequate. He thinks the model-theoretic account both OVERGENERATES, i.e. declares as logically valid arguments that are not logically valid and that it UNDERGENERATES, i.e. declares as logically invalid arguments that are not logically invalid. Etchemendy's focus, however, is on overgeneration. But he does not think that the model-theoretic account overgenerates in first-order logic. Thanks to an argument from George Kreisel (1967), known as the SQUEEZING ARGUMENT, it can be shown that the model-theoretic account does not overgenerate in first-order logic. In order to find examples of arguments which are truthpreserving in all models but not logically valid, Etchemendy therefore focuses on second-order logic. The argument turns on the CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS. This is the hypothesis that there is no set whose cardinality is between that of the integers and the real numbers. It is possible to use nothing but logical expressions of second-order logic to formulate a sentence which is true in all second-order models IFF the continuum hypothesis is true. Call this sentence S. Its negation, S, is true in all secondorder models IFF the continuum hypothesis is false.

10 Now consider the following arguments: ARGUMENT 1 1. Donald Trump is a Republican 2. So, S ARGUMENT 2 1. Donald Trump is a Republican 2. So, S If the continuum hypothesis is true, then S is true in all models, and ARGUMENT 1 is declared logically valid. If the continuum hypothesis is false, then S is true in all models, and ARGUMENT 2 is declared logically valid. So either way, one of ARGUMENT 1 and ARGUMENT 2 is declared logically valid. But, Etchemendy claims, neither of them is in fact logically valid. Why not? The thought seems to be that they can only be logically valid if either the continuum hypothesis or its negation is a logical truth. But it is not the case that either the continuum hypothesis or its negation is a logical truth. SUMMARY

11 We've seen that formal accounts of logical consequence generally, and Tarski's model-theoretic account in particular, have to face the problem of LOGICAL CONSTANTS. This is the problem of distinguishing logical expressions or constants from non-logical ones. Early on, Tarski seems to have taken a pragmatic attitude to this problem, but later on, opted for an account of the distinction in terms of PERMUTATION INVARIANCE. We saw some problems with this account. And we'll look at an alternative solution next week. We've also looked at Etchemendy's objections to the modeltheoretic account of logical consequence. The first objection is that the account is CONCEPTUALLY inadequate, mistaking the symptoms of logical consequence for logical consequence itself. The second objection is that the account is EXTENSIONALLY inadequate, and in particular that it overgenerates. Etchemendy's argument for this focuses on the case of second-order logic, and an example involving the continuum hypothesis.

### Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence 1 Jared Bates, University of Missouri Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1999):

Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence 1 Jared Bates, University of Missouri Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1999): 47 54. Abstract: John Etchemendy (1990) has argued that Tarski's definition of logical

### UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016

Logical Consequence UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Intuitive characterizations of consequence Modal: It is necessary (or apriori) that, if the premises are true, the conclusion

### On Tarski On Models. Timothy Bays

On Tarski On Models Timothy Bays Abstract This paper concerns Tarski s use of the term model in his 1936 paper On the Concept of Logical Consequence. Against several of Tarski s recent defenders, I argue

### A Defense of Contingent Logical Truths

Michael Nelson and Edward N. Zalta 2 A Defense of Contingent Logical Truths Michael Nelson University of California/Riverside and Edward N. Zalta Stanford University Abstract A formula is a contingent

### Characterizing the distinction between the logical and non-logical

Aporia vol. 27 no. 1 2017 The Nature of Logical Constants Lauren Richardson Characterizing the distinction between the logical and non-logical expressions of a language proves a challenging task, and one

### SAVING RELATIVISM FROM ITS SAVIOUR

CRÍTICA, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía Vol. XXXI, No. 91 (abril 1999): 91 103 SAVING RELATIVISM FROM ITS SAVIOUR MAX KÖLBEL Doctoral Programme in Cognitive Science Universität Hamburg In his paper

### Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction?

Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL - and thus deduction

### More reflections on consequence

More reflections on consequence Julien Murzi & Massimiliano Carrara October 13, 2014 Abstract This special issue collects together nine new essays on logical consequence: the relation obtaining between

### Understanding Truth Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002

1 Symposium on Understanding Truth By Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002 2 Precis of Understanding Truth Scott Soames Understanding Truth aims to illuminate

### Quantificational logic and empty names

Quantificational logic and empty names Andrew Bacon 26th of March 2013 1 A Puzzle For Classical Quantificational Theory Empty Names: Consider the sentence 1. There is something identical to Pegasus On

### Squeezing arguments. Peter Smith. May 9, 2010

Squeezing arguments Peter Smith May 9, 2010 Many of our concepts are introduced to us via, and seem only to be constrained by, roughand-ready explanations and some sample paradigm positive and negative

### A Defense of the Kripkean Account of Logical Truth in First-Order Modal Logic

A Defense of the Kripkean Account of Logical Truth in First-Order Modal Logic 1. Introduction The concern here is criticism of the Kripkean representation of modal, logical truth as truth at the actual-world

### Non-logical consequence. David Hitchcock. McMaster University.

Non-logical consequence David Hitchcock McMaster University hitchckd@mcmaster.ca Non-logical consequence ABSTRACT: Contemporary philosophers generally conceive of consequence as necessary truthpreservation.

### Analyticity and reference determiners

Analyticity and reference determiners Jeff Speaks November 9, 2011 1. The language myth... 1 2. The definition of analyticity... 3 3. Defining containment... 4 4. Some remaining questions... 6 4.1. Reference

### Remarks on a Foundationalist Theory of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh

For Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Remarks on a Foundationalist Theory of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh I Tim Maudlin s Truth and Paradox offers a theory of truth that arises from

### A defense of contingent logical truths

Philos Stud (2012) 157:153 162 DOI 10.1007/s11098-010-9624-y A defense of contingent logical truths Michael Nelson Edward N. Zalta Published online: 22 September 2010 Ó The Author(s) 2010. This article

### Williams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism

Williams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism Nicholas K. Jones Non-citable draft: 26 02 2010. Final version appeared in: The Journal of Philosophy (2011) 108: 11: 633-641 Central to discussion

Chadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDE-IN To classify sentences like This proposition is false as having no truth value or as nonpropositions is generally considered as being

### Review of "The Tarskian Turn: Deflationism and Axiomatic Truth"

Essays in Philosophy Volume 13 Issue 2 Aesthetics and the Senses Article 19 August 2012 Review of "The Tarskian Turn: Deflationism and Axiomatic Truth" Matthew McKeon Michigan State University Follow this

### Predicate logic. Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) Madrid Spain

Predicate logic Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) 28040 Madrid Spain Synonyms. First-order logic. Question 1. Describe this discipline/sub-discipline, and some of its more

### Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods

Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the

### 1. Introduction. Against GMR: The Incredulous Stare (Lewis 1986: 133 5).

Lecture 3 Modal Realism II James Openshaw 1. Introduction Against GMR: The Incredulous Stare (Lewis 1986: 133 5). Whatever else is true of them, today s views aim not to provoke the incredulous stare.

### Informalizing Formal Logic

Informalizing Formal Logic Antonis Kakas Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Cyprus antonis@ucy.ac.cy Abstract. This paper discusses how the basic notions of formal logic can be expressed

### Can logical consequence be deflated?

Can logical consequence be deflated? Michael De University of Utrecht Department of Philosophy Utrecht, Netherlands mikejde@gmail.com in Insolubles and Consequences : essays in honour of Stephen Read,

### Broad on Theological Arguments. I. The Ontological Argument

Broad on God Broad on Theological Arguments I. The Ontological Argument Sample Ontological Argument: Suppose that God is the most perfect or most excellent being. Consider two things: (1)An entity that

### Truth At a World for Modal Propositions

Truth At a World for Modal Propositions 1 Introduction Existentialism is a thesis that concerns the ontological status of individual essences and singular propositions. Let us define an individual essence

### Logic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice

Logic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice Daniele Porello danieleporello@gmail.com Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC) University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 24

### LOGICAL PLURALISM IS COMPATIBLE WITH MONISM ABOUT METAPHYSICAL MODALITY

LOGICAL PLURALISM IS COMPATIBLE WITH MONISM ABOUT METAPHYSICAL MODALITY Nicola Ciprotti and Luca Moretti Beall and Restall [2000], [2001] and [2006] advocate a comprehensive pluralist approach to logic,

### A NOTE ON LOGICAL TRUTH

Logique & Analyse 227 (2014), 309 331 A NOTE ON LOGICAL TRUTH CORINE BESSON ABSTRACT Classical logic counts sentences such as Alice is identical with Alice as logically true. A standard objection to classical

### Class #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism

Philosophy 405: Knowledge, Truth and Mathematics Fall 2010 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism I. The Continuum Hypothesis and Its Independence The continuum problem

### Putnam, Koethe, and Metaphysical Realism

Putnam, Koethe, and Metaphysical Realism Shekhar Pradhan University of Illinois at Urbana-Charopaign I In a discussion note titled "Putnam's Argument Against Realism" 1 John Koethe attempts to refute Putnam's

### Russell and Logical Ontology. This paper focuses on an account of implication that Russell held intermittently from 1903 to

1 Russell and Logical Ontology Introduction This paper focuses on an account of implication that Russell held intermittently from 1903 to 1908. 1 On this account, logical propositions are formal truths

### Definite Descriptions and the Argument from Inference

Philosophia (2014) 42:1099 1109 DOI 10.1007/s11406-014-9519-9 Definite Descriptions and the Argument from Inference Wojciech Rostworowski Received: 20 November 2013 / Revised: 29 January 2014 / Accepted:

### Logic & Proofs. Chapter 3 Content. Sentential Logic Semantics. Contents: Studying this chapter will enable you to:

Sentential Logic Semantics Contents: Truth-Value Assignments and Truth-Functions Truth-Value Assignments Truth-Functions Introduction to the TruthLab Truth-Definition Logical Notions Truth-Trees Studying

### Modal Realism, Still At Your Convenience

Modal Realism, Still At Your Convenience Harold Noonan Mark Jago Forthcoming in Analysis Abstract: Divers (2014) presents a set of de re modal truths which, he claims, are inconvenient for Lewisean modal

### The Perfect Being Argument in Case-Intensional Logic The perfect being argument for God s existence is the following deduction:

The Perfect Being Argument in Case-Intensional Logic The perfect being argument for God s existence is the following deduction: - Axiom F1: If a property is positive, its negation is not positive. - Axiom

### Qualitative and quantitative inference to the best theory. reply to iikka Niiniluoto Kuipers, Theodorus

University of Groningen Qualitative and quantitative inference to the best theory. reply to iikka Niiniluoto Kuipers, Theodorus Published in: EPRINTS-BOOK-TITLE IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult

### Kripke s Naming and Necessity. Against Descriptivism

Kripke s Naming and Necessity Lecture Three Against Descriptivism Rob Trueman rob.trueman@york.ac.uk University of York Introduction Against Descriptivism Introduction The Modal Argument Rigid Designators

### 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

### INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments Volker Halbach Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry The Logic Manual The Logic Manual The Logic Manual The Logic Manual

### Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments

Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 1 Warfield s argument for compatibilism................................ 1 2 Why the argument fails to show that free will and

### On Infinite Size. Bruno Whittle

To appear in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics On Infinite Size Bruno Whittle Late in the 19th century, Cantor introduced the notion of the power, or the cardinality, of an infinite set. 1 According to Cantor

### Hourya BENIS SINACEUR. Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST) CNRS-ENS-Université Paris 1. Juin 2010

Hourya BENIS SINACEUR Institut d Histoire et Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST) CNRS-ENS-Université Paris 1 Juin 2010 Etchemendy s objections to Tarski s account of the notion of logical

### An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori. Ralph Wedgwood

An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori Ralph Wedgwood When philosophers explain the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori, they usually characterize the a priori negatively, as involving

### STUDIES IN THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY

STUDIES IN THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY Herausgegeben von Tobias Rosefeldt und Benjamin Schnieder in Zusammenarbeit mit Elke Brendel (Bonn) Tim Henning (Stuttgart) Max Kölbel (Barcelona) Hannes Leitgeb (München)

### Evaluating Logical Pluralism

University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 11-23-2009 Evaluating Logical Pluralism David Pruitt University of Missouri-St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis

### Understanding Belief Reports. David Braun. In this paper, I defend a well-known theory of belief reports from an important objection.

Appeared in Philosophical Review 105 (1998), pp. 555-595. Understanding Belief Reports David Braun In this paper, I defend a well-known theory of belief reports from an important objection. The theory

### Metaphysical Necessity: Understanding, Truth and Epistemology

Metaphysical Necessity: Understanding, Truth and Epistemology CHRISTOPHER PEACOCKE This paper presents an account of the understanding of statements involving metaphysical modality, together with dovetailing

### Truth, Omniscience, and Cantorian Arguments: An Exchange. Alvin Plantinga and Patrick Grim

1 of 25 4/25/2009 6:05 PM Truth, Omniscience, and Cantorian Arguments: An Exchange Alvin Plantinga and Patrick Grim from Philosophical Studies 71 (1993), 267-306. See also "The Being That Knew Too Much,"

### Retrospective Remarks on Events (Kim, Davidson, Quine) Philosophy 125 Day 20: Overview. The Possible & The Actual I: Intensionality of Modality 2

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 20: Overview 1st Papers/SQ s to be returned next week (a bit later than expected) Jim Prior Colloquium Today (4pm Howison, 3rd Floor Moses)

### Module 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur

Module 5 Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Lesson 12 Propositional Logic inference rules 5.5 Rules of Inference Here are some examples of sound rules of inference. Each can be shown

### IN his paper, 'Does Tense Logic Rest Upon a Mistake?' (to appear

128 ANALYSIS context-dependence that if things had been different, 'the actual world' would have picked out some world other than the actual one. Tulane University, GRAEME FORBES 1983 New Orleans, Louisiana

### The Metaphysical Interpretation of Logical Truth

Date:24/6/14 Time:21:33:01 Page Number: 233 chapter 14 The Metaphysical Interpretation of Logical Truth Tuomas E. Tahko 1. Two Senses of Logical Truth The notion of logical truth has a wide variety of

### 6. Truth and Possible Worlds

6. Truth and Possible Worlds We have defined logical entailment, consistency, and the connectives,,, all in terms of belief. In view of the close connection between belief and truth, described in the first

### Revelation, Humility, and the Structure of the World. David J. Chalmers

Revelation, Humility, and the Structure of the World David J. Chalmers Revelation and Humility Revelation holds for a property P iff Possessing the concept of P enables us to know what property P is Humility

### Announcements The Logic of Quantifiers Logical Truth & Consequence in Full Fol. Outline. Overview The Big Picture. William Starr

Announcements 10.27 The Logic of Quantifiers Logical Truth & Consequence in Full Fol William Starr 1 Hang tight on the midterm We ll get it back to you as soon as we can 2 Grades for returned HW will be

### Quantifiers: Their Semantic Type (Part 3) Heim and Kratzer Chapter 6

Quantifiers: Their Semantic Type (Part 3) Heim and Kratzer Chapter 6 1 6.7 Presuppositional quantifier phrases 2 6.7.1 Both and neither (1a) Neither cat has stripes. (1b) Both cats have stripes. (1a) and

### Epistemic two-dimensionalism

Epistemic two-dimensionalism phil 93507 Jeff Speaks December 1, 2009 1 Four puzzles.......................................... 1 2 Epistemic two-dimensionalism................................ 3 2.1 Two-dimensional

### Kevin Scharp, Replacing Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, At 300-some pages, with narrow margins and small print, the work

Kevin Scharp, Replacing Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 352pp., \$85.00, ISBN 9780199653850. At 300-some pages, with narrow margins and small print, the work under review, a spirited defense

### Is anything knowable on the basis of understanding alone?

Is anything knowable on the basis of understanding alone? PHIL 83104 November 7, 2011 1. Some linking principles... 1 2. Problems with these linking principles... 2 2.1. False analytic sentences? 2.2.

### Quine on the analytic/synthetic distinction

Quine on the analytic/synthetic distinction Jeff Speaks March 14, 2005 1 Analyticity and synonymy.............................. 1 2 Synonymy and definition ( 2)............................ 2 3 Synonymy

### LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010

LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010 LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH. LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES,

### Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions

Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions Christopher Menzel Texas A&M University March 16, 2008 Since Arthur Prior first made us aware of the issue, a lot of philosophical thought has gone into

### Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori

Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in

### God of the gaps: a neglected reply to God s stone problem

God of the gaps: a neglected reply to God s stone problem Jc Beall & A. J. Cotnoir January 1, 2017 Traditional monotheism has long faced logical puzzles (omniscience, omnipotence, and more) [10, 11, 13,

### Logic. A Primer with Addendum

Logic A Primer with Addendum The Currency of Philosophy Philosophy trades in arguments. An argument is a set of propositions some one of which is intended to be warranted or entailed by the others. The

### TRUTH IN MATHEMATICS. H.G. Dales and G. Oliveri (eds.) (Clarendon: Oxford. 1998, pp. xv, 376, ISBN X) Reviewed by Mark Colyvan

TRUTH IN MATHEMATICS H.G. Dales and G. Oliveri (eds.) (Clarendon: Oxford. 1998, pp. xv, 376, ISBN 0-19-851476-X) Reviewed by Mark Colyvan The question of truth in mathematics has puzzled mathematicians

### prohibition, moral commitment and other normative matters. Although often described as a branch

Logic, deontic. The study of principles of reasoning pertaining to obligation, permission, prohibition, moral commitment and other normative matters. Although often described as a branch of logic, deontic

### Propositions and Same-Saying: Introduction

Propositions and Same-Saying: Introduction Philosophers often talk about the things we say, or believe, or think, or mean. The things are often called propositions. A proposition is what one believes,

### how to be an expressivist about truth

Mark Schroeder University of Southern California March 15, 2009 how to be an expressivist about truth In this paper I explore why one might hope to, and how to begin to, develop an expressivist account

### PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE OVERVIEW FREGE JONNY MCINTOSH 1. FREGE'S CONCEPTION OF LOGIC

PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE JONNY MCINTOSH 1. FREGE'S CONCEPTION OF LOGIC OVERVIEW These lectures cover material for paper 108, Philosophy of Logic and Language. They will focus on issues in philosophy

### Facts and Free Logic. R. M. Sainsbury

R. M. Sainsbury 119 Facts are structures which are the case, and they are what true sentences affirm. It is a fact that Fido barks. It is easy to list some of its components, Fido and the property of barking.

### Facts and Free Logic R. M. Sainsbury

Facts and Free Logic R. M. Sainsbury Facts are structures which are the case, and they are what true sentences affirm. It is a fact that Fido barks. It is easy to list some of its components, Fido and

### Verificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011

Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability

### What is the Frege/Russell Analysis of Quantification? Scott Soames

What is the Frege/Russell Analysis of Quantification? Scott Soames The Frege-Russell analysis of quantification was a fundamental advance in semantics and philosophical logic. Abstracting away from details

### Semantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference

Semantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference Ebba Gullberg ebba.gullberg@philos.umu.se Sten Lindström sten.lindstrom@philos.umu.se Umeå University Abstract Is it possible to give a justification

### xiv Truth Without Objectivity

Introduction There is a certain approach to theorizing about language that is called truthconditional semantics. The underlying idea of truth-conditional semantics is often summarized as the idea that

### Generic truth and mixed conjunctions: some alternatives

Analysis Advance Access published June 15, 2009 Generic truth and mixed conjunctions: some alternatives AARON J. COTNOIR Christine Tappolet (2000) posed a problem for alethic pluralism: either deny the

### 1. What is Philosophy?

[Welcome to the first handout of your Introduction to Philosophy Mooc! This handout is designed to complement the video lecture by giving you a written summary of the key points covered in the videos.

### Why Is a Valid Inference a Good Inference?

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research doi: 10.1111/phpr.12206 2015 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Why Is a Valid Inference a Good Inference? SINAN

### THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST MATERIALISM AND ITS SEMANTIC PREMISE

Diametros nr 29 (wrzesień 2011): 80-92 THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST MATERIALISM AND ITS SEMANTIC PREMISE Karol Polcyn 1. PRELIMINARIES Chalmers articulates his argument in terms of two-dimensional

### A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November

Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group

### Counterparts and Compositional Nihilism: A Reply to A. J. Cotnoir

Thought ISSN 2161-2234 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Counterparts and Compositional Nihilism: University of Kentucky DOI:10.1002/tht3.92 1 A brief summary of Cotnoir s view One of the primary burdens of the mereological

### Ayer on the criterion of verifiability

Ayer on the criterion of verifiability November 19, 2004 1 The critique of metaphysics............................. 1 2 Observation statements............................... 2 3 In principle verifiability...............................

### Completeness or Incompleteness of Basic Mathematical Concepts Donald A. Martin 1 2

0 Introduction Completeness or Incompleteness of Basic Mathematical Concepts Donald A. Martin 1 2 Draft 2/12/18 I am addressing the topic of the EFI workshop through a discussion of basic mathematical

### On A New Cosmological Argument

On A New Cosmological Argument Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss A New Cosmological Argument, Religious Studies 35, 1999, pp.461 76 present a cosmological argument which they claim is an improvement over

### Philosophy of Mathematics Nominalism

Philosophy of Mathematics Nominalism Owen Griffiths oeg21@cam.ac.uk Churchill and Newnham, Cambridge 8/11/18 Last week Ante rem structuralism accepts mathematical structures as Platonic universals. We

### To appear in A. Rayo and G. Uzquiano (eds.), Unrestricted Quantification: New Essays. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2007)

To appear in A. Rayo and G. Uzquiano (eds.), Unrestricted Quantification: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2007) Absolute Identity and Absolute Generality Timothy Williamson The

### Varieties of Apriority

S E V E N T H E X C U R S U S Varieties of Apriority T he notions of a priori knowledge and justification play a central role in this work. There are many ways in which one can understand the a priori,

### Primitive Concepts. David J. Chalmers

Primitive Concepts David J. Chalmers Conceptual Analysis: A Traditional View A traditional view: Most ordinary concepts (or expressions) can be defined in terms of other more basic concepts (or expressions)

### W hat i s m e taphy sics?

c h a p t e r 1 W hat i s m e taphy sics? K it Fin e There are, I believe, five main features that serve to distinguish traditional metaphysics from other forms of enquiry. These are: the aprioricity of

### Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan

A03.1 Introduction Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: With valid arguments, it is impossible to have a false conclusion if the premises are all true. Obviously valid arguments play a very important

### Verification and Validation

2012-2013 Verification and Validation Part III : Proof-based Verification Burkhart Wolff Département Informatique Université Paris-Sud / Orsay " Now, can we build a Logic for Programs??? 05/11/14 B. Wolff

### Realism and Idealism Internal realism

Realism and Idealism Internal realism Owen Griffiths oeg21@cam.ac.uk St John s College, Cambridge 12/11/15 Easy answers Last week, we considered the metaontological debate between Quine and Carnap. Quine

### The paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here s an example of this sort of argument:!

The Sorites Paradox The paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here s an example of this sort of argument:! Height Sorites 1) Someone who is 7 feet in height

### Understanding, Modality, Logical Operators. Christopher Peacocke. Columbia University

Understanding, Modality, Logical Operators Christopher Peacocke Columbia University Timothy Williamson s The Philosophy of Philosophy stimulates on every page. I would like to discuss every chapter. To

### Philosophy 125 Day 21: Overview

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 21: Overview 1st Papers/SQ s to be returned this week (stay tuned... ) Vanessa s handout on Realism about propositions to be posted Second papers/s.q.

### Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic

Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic Russell Marcus Hamilton College Fall 2011 Class 27: October 28 Truth and Liars Marcus, Symbolic Logic, Fall 2011 Slide 1 Philosophers and Truth P Sex! P Lots of technical