Dummett's output has been prolific and highly influential, but not always as accessible as it deserves to be. This book sets out to rectify this situation.

ABSTRACT In ‘The philosophical basis of intuitionistic logic’, Michael Dummett discusses two routes towards accepting intuitionistic rather than classical logic in number theory, one meaning-theoretical and the other ontological. He concludes that the former route is open, but the latter is closed. I reconstruct Dummett's argument against the ontological route and argue that it fails. Call a procedure ‘investigative’ if that in virtue of which a true proposition stating its outcome is true exists prior to the execution of (...) that procedure; and ‘generative’ if the existence of that in virtue of which a true proposition stating its outcome is true is brought about by the execution of that procedure. The problem with Dummett's argument then is that a particular step in it, while correct for investigative procedures, is not correct for generative ones. But it is the latter that the ontological route is concerned with. (shrink)

Few would contest the fact that analytical philosophy has dominated philosophical practice in the English speaking world for about the last century. But dispute continues about both its origins and nature; whilst others question its value. Michael Dummett wholly embraced the analytical approach to philosophy, as he conceived of it. For him analytical philosophy marked itself off from its precursors and its alternatives, embodied in the Continental tradition, by taking the linguistic turn. And Frege was unequivocally the first philosopher (...) to take that auspicious turn, which ushered in a new method in philosophy. Henceforth philosophers were to approach the business of analyzing thought via the enterprise of analyzing language. So Dummett is presenting us with both a history lesson and a recommendation about how we ought to do philosophy. But is his reading of the history accurate? And is his conception of the nature of analytical philosophy viable? In order to reflect on these questions this collection brings together eight scholars who have made a serious business of reading Dummett. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper I contend that Michael Dummett’s works contain a distinction between analytic and synthetic (logical) deductions. Dummett does not use Kant’s terminology. Nevertheless, based on general considerations about theories of meaning, Dummett shows how one can distinguish between deductions whose validity is recognised by merely grasping the concepts and deductions whose validity can be recognised only by “going beyond the concepts”, as Kant wrote. The latter are synthetic deductions, through which we (...) can increase our knowledge. A special merit of Dummett’s distinction is its theoretical flexibility and generality. He does not propose a single clear-cut distinction between analytic and synthetic deductions; rather in his works we find an indication of how to draw a distinction once a theory of meaning is adopted. In the second part of the paper I consider possible developments within an inferentialist theory of meaning and draw some conclusions concerning the fallibility of deductions. (shrink)

Dummett's case against platonism rests on arguments concerning the acquisition and manifestation of knowledge of meaning. Dummett's arguments are here criticized from a viewpoint less Davidsonian than Chomskian. Dummett's case against formalism is obscure because in its prescriptive considerations are not clearly separated from descriptive. Dummett's implicit value judgments are here made explicit and questioned. ?Combat Revisionism!? Chairman Mao.

Dummett’s notion of indefinite extensibility is influential but obscure. The notion figures centrally in an alternative Dummettian argument for intuitionistic logic and anti-realism, distinct from his more famous, meaning-theoretic arguments to the same effect. Drawing on ideas from Dummett, a precise analysis of indefinite extensibility is proposed. This analysis is used to reconstruct the poorly understood alternative argument. The plausibility of the resulting argument is assessed.

This book offers an historically-informed critical assessment of Dummett's account of abstract objects, examining in detail some of the Fregean presuppositions whilst also engaging with recent work on the problem of abstract entities.

Devitt (1983) "Dummett's Anti-Realism".

Michael Dummett's approach to the metaphysical issue of realism through the philosophy of language, his challenge to realism, and his philosophy of language itself are central topics in contemporary analytic philosophy and have influenced the work of other major figures such as Quine, Putnam, and Davidson. This book offers an accessible and systematic presentation of the main elements of Dummett's philosophy. This book's overarching theme is Dummett's discussion of realism: his characterization of realism, his attack on realism, (...) and his invention and exploration of the anti-realist position. This book begins by examining Dummett's views on language. Only against that setting can one fully appreciate his conception of the realism issue. With this in place, Weiss returns to Dummett's views on the nature of meaning and understanding to unfold his challenge to realism. Weiss devotes the remainder of the book to examining the anti-realist position. He discusses anti-realist theories of meaning and then investigates anti-realism's revisionary consequences. Finally, he engages with Dummett's discussion of two difficult challenges for the anti-realist: the past and mathematics. (shrink)

Michael Dummett mounts, in Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics, a concerted attack on the attempt, led by Crispin Wright, to salvage defensible versions of Frege's platonism and logicism in which Frege's criterion of numerical identity plays a leading role. I discern four main strands in this attack—that Wright's solution to the Caesar problem fails; that explaining number words contextually cannot justify treating them as enjoying robust reference; that Wright has no effective counter to ontological reductionism; and that the attempt is (...) vitiated by the unavoidable impredicativity of its leading principle—and argue that none of them succeeds. (shrink)

In his recent writings, Sir Michael Dummett has reflected twice on the Catholic position on the morality of contraception, focusing his attention especially on Humanae Vitae’s prohibition of the contraceptive use of the birth control pill. On examination, Dummett finds this prohibition ‘incoherent’, arguing that its promulgation ‘greatly damaged the respect of the faithful for the Catholic Church’s moral teaching in general’, as well as ‘the integrity of Catholic moral theology’. Given Dummett’s earlier defense of Paul VI’s (...) reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional position on contraception in Humanae Vitae, as well as his forceful criticisms of certain liberalizing tendencies among Catholic theologians and biblical scholars, these arguments deserve to be taken seriously, and regarded as coming from a spirit of serious philosophical reflection rather than casual dissent. Nevertheless, this paper argues that they are based on a misapprehension of what is really behind the position Dummett means to be criticizing, and that when the essentials of that position are clarified the rationale behind it is safe from his objections. (shrink)

This paper continues Michael Dummett's and my discussion of Frege in The Philosophy of Michael Dummett [2007]. Most of it is about Dummett’s change in view on Frege’s senses and objects. The issues include: the cognitive order versus the ontological order for the forward road; the nature and identity of senses and the different senses of "intension;" the nature of saturation; whether special quantifiers are now needed for senses; and Frege’s earlier and later permutation arguments. I discuss (...) the implications of the forward road for intuitionism as well. (shrink)

Just as the accuracy of scientific theories is best tested in extreme physical conditions, it is advisable to verify the accuracy of a recognized conception of language on its extreme parts. Mathematical statements meet this role, thanks to the notion of truth and proof. Michael Dummett’s anti-realism is an enterprise that has attempted on this basis to question the notion of the functioning of language-based primarily on the principle of bivalence, the truth-condition theory of meaning, and the notion that (...) the speaker must be able to demonstrate his knowledge of meaning publicly. In common language practice, one can observe assertions that we can neither verify nor refute in principle. On these so-called undecidable statements, Dummett tried to show that if we apply the traditional description to them, we inevitably reach paradoxical conclusions. Mathematical statements referring to an infinite number may be examples of these assertions. In the submitted paper, I will present Dummett’s position resulting primarily in a manifestation and acquisition argument, according to which it should not be possible to understand undecidable statements at all. In conclusion, however, I will show that his intention – despite many valuable comments – fails, i.e. that there is a way to avoid both arguments while preserving the realistic description of the language in general. Key words: anti-realism, mathematical statements, meaning, Michael Dummett, truth, truth-condition theory of meaning. (shrink)

In this paper I give a reconstruction of Dummett’s main arguments concerning the theory of the occult origin of the Tarot, and discuss the reasons behind the success of the Tarot pack – in particular the Major Arcana – in the history of card games. I also provide some indication of the links between Dummett’s interest in the history of card games and aspects of his philosophical background. As I am not an expert on card games, this paper (...) is mainly a personal tribute to a side of Dummett’s work to which philosophers have in general paid little attention. (shrink)

Geoffrey Hunter; VIII*—Dummett's Arguments about the Natural Numbers, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 80, Issue 1, 1 June 1980, Pages 115–126, h.

Book Information Dummett: Philosophy of Language. By Karen Green. Polity Press. Cambridge. 2002. Pp. xi + 220. Hardback, £55. Paperback, £14.99.

Book Information Michael Dummett. By Bernhard Weiss.\nAcumen. Chesham. 2002. Pp. ix + 197. Paperback,\n{Â}\textsterling13.95.

This chapter deals with the following questions: What does Michael Dummett demand of a “systematic” theory of meaning, and what understanding of Frege's “level of sense” leads him to conclude that, if Wittgenstein is correct in denying that there is such a level, then no systematic theory of meaning is possible? For Dummett, an understanding of the meaning side of language is not “systematic” if it must hold that a sentence is understood only because it has been previously (...) learned as a whole. To reconstruct how Dummett arrives at Frege's level of “sense” as crucial for a systematic understanding of complexity, we can begin with a hypothetical concrete situation and proceed step by step to rule out what is not meant by “meaning” when we speak of it as being systematically developed. (shrink)

The paper examines Dummett's argument for the indefinite extensibility of the concepts set, ordinal, real number, set of natural numbers, and natural number. In particular it investigates how the indefinite extensibility of the concept set affects our understanding of the notion of real number and whether the argument to the indefinite extensibility of the reals is cogent. It claims that Dummett is right to think of the universe of sets as an indefinitely extensible domain but questions the cogency (...) of the further claim that this fact raises an issue as to what sets or real numbers there are. (shrink)

The paper examines Dummett's argument for the indefinite extensibility of the concepts set, ordinal, real number, set of natural numbers, and natural number. In particular it investigates how the indefinite extensibility of the concept set affects our understanding of the notion of real number and whether the argument to the indefinite extensibility of the reals is cogent. It claims that Dummett is right to think of the universe of sets as an indefinitely extensible domain but questions the cogency (...) of the further claim that this fact raises an issue as to what sets or real numbers there are. (shrink)

Michael Dummett's approach to the metaphysical issue of realism through the philosophy of language, his challenge to realism, and his philosophy of language itself are central topics in contemporary analytic philosophy and have influenced the work of other major figures such as Quine, Putnam, and Davidson. This book offers an accessible and systematic presentation of the main elements of Dummett's philosophy. This book's overarching theme is Dummett's discussion of realism: his characterization of realism, his attack on realism, (...) and his invention and exploration of the anti-realist position. This book begins by examining Dummett's views on language. Only against that setting can one fully appreciate his conception of the realism issue. With this in place, Weiss returns to Dummett's views on the nature of meaning and understanding to unfold his challenge to realism. Weiss devotes the remainder of this book to examining the anti-realist position. He discusses anti-realist theories of meaning and then investigates anti-realism's revisionary consequences. Finally, he engages with Dummett's discussion of two difficult challenges for the anti-realist: the past and mathematics. (shrink)

This is a bibliography of Ann Dummett's work.

Introduction: Dummett's Key Traits Following what has been suggested in the preface, in order to understand Dummett's perspective as fully as possible ...

Michael Dummett claims that the classical model of time as a continuum of instants has to be rejected. In his view, “it allows as possibilities what reason rules out, and leaves it to the contingent laws of physics to rule out what a good model of physical reality would not even be able to describe.” This paper argues otherwise.

Dummett has recently presented his most mature and sophisticated version of justificationism, i.e. the view that meaning and truth are to be analysed in terms of justifiability. In this paper, I argue that this conception does not resolve a difficulty that also affected Dummett’s earlier version of justificationism: the problem that large tracts of the past continuously vanish as their traces in the present dissipate. Since Dummett’s justificationism is essentially based on the assumption that the speaker has (...) limited (i.e. non-idealized) cognitive powers, no further refinement of this position is likely to settle the problem of the vanishing past. (shrink)

The British philosopher Michael Dummett (1925–2011) not only had a massive influence on the development of analytical philosophy within the philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and metaphysics, but also contributed significantly to historical and metaphilosophical debates about the nature of this philosophical movement and its proper account. He proposed to define analytical philosophy as philosophy whose aim is the analysis of the structure of thought by way of the analysis of language. Hence, it is philosophy the gist of (...) which is the linguistic turn. A number of critics of this proposal (including Barry Smith, Peter Hylton, and Hans-Johann Glock) emphasised that Dummett’s proposal captures merely some features of this diversified and multifaceted philosophical tradition, and is far from being historically adequate. (shrink)

Dummett’s justification procedures are revisited. They are used as background for the discussion of some conceptual and technical issues in proof-theoretic semantics, especially the role played by assumptions in proof-theoretic definitions of validity.

I show that propositional intuitionistic logic is complete with respect to an adaptation of Dummett’s pragmatist justification procedure. In particular, given a pragmatist justification of an argument, I show how to obtain a natural deduction derivation of the conclusion of the argument from, at most, the same assumptions.

In ‘Bringing about the Past’ Michael Dummett attempted to defend the coherence of the idea of bringing about the past. I agree that bringing about the past is conceptually no more problematic than bringing about the future, but argue, against Dummett, that there is no need to restrict the scope of an agent’s knowledge in order to make sense of intentionally bringing about past events.

Michael Dummett famously holds that the “philosophy of thought” must proceed via the philosophy of language, since that is the only way to preserve the objectivity of thoughts while avoiding commitments to “mythological,” Platonic entities. Central to Dummett’s case is his thesis that all thought contents are linguistically expressible. In this paper, I will (a) argue that making the linguistic turn is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid the problems of psychologism, (b) discuss Wayne Martin’s argument that not (...) all thought-contents are linguistically communicable, and (c) present another, stronger argument, derived from Husserl’s early account of fulfillment, that establishes the same conclusion. (shrink)

My early promise to answer Dummett's criticisms has been kept: both general criticisms of Goodman's constructional method and particular criticisms of specific aspects of the system developed in SA have been met. The general conclusion has to be that Dummett in his review, and in his elaborations in his two later articles, is not a reliable guide to SA itself, or to its significance. Those whom I hypothesized as having left their copies of SA unread on the basis (...) of Dummett's unfavourable judgment should now, even if belatedly, read them. (shrink)

SummaryIn his Origins of Analytical Philosophy Michael Dummett claims that even in this earliest writings Frege can be identified as the grandfather of analytical philosophy. My aim here is to show how difficult it is to make out this claim convincingly.

SummaryIn his Origins of Analytical Philosophy Michael Dummett claims that even in this earliest writings Frege can be identified as the grandfather of analytical philosophy. My aim here is to show how difficult it is to make out this claim convincingly.

Throughout his philosophical career, Michael Dummett held firmly two theses: the theory of meaning has a central position in philosophy and all other forms of philosophical inquiry rest upon semantic analysis, in particular semantic issues replace traditional metaphysical issues; the theory of meaning is a theory of understanding. I will defend neither of them. However, I will argue that there is an important lesson we can learn by reflecting on the link between linguistic competence and semantics, which I take (...) to be an important part of Dummett’s legacy in philosophy of language. I discuss this point in relation to Cappelen and Lepore’s criticism of Incompleteness Arguments. (shrink)

Sir Michael Dummett belongs to a small group of the greatest analytical philosophers of the second half of the 20th century, and presumably it would be no exaggeration to consider him the most prominent and influential British philosopher over the last three decades. He has published numerous articles, not only in the field of philosophy. However, a reader willing to learn his recent views is going to face some problems. Although Dummett’s most extended monograph — The Logical Basis (...) of Metaphysics — being a systematic exposition of his own views, was published relatively not so long ago, large parts of it, presented as The William James Lectures at the Harvard University, originally have even come from 1976. From this earlier material, the reader can hardly separate what Dummett has added when preparing this monograph to publication, at the end of the 1980s. (shrink)

We examine the proof-theoretic verificationist justification procedure proposed by Dummett. After some scrutiny, two distinct interpretations with respect to bases are advanced: the independent and the dependent interpretation. We argue that both are unacceptable as a semantics for propositional intuitionistic logic.

As part of his attack on Frege’s ‘myth’ that senses reside in the third realm, Dummett alleges that Frege’s view that all objects are selbständig is an underlying mistake, since some objects depend upon others. Whatever the merits of Dummett’s other arguments against Frege’s conception of sense, this objection fails. First, Frege’s view that senses are third-realm entities is not traceable to his view that all objects are selbständig. Second, while Frege recognizes that there are objects that are (...) dependent upon other objects, he does not take this to compromise the Selbständigkeit of any objects. Thus, Frege’s doctrine that objects are selbständig does not make the claim of absolute independence that Dummett appears to have taken it to make. Nevertheless, in order to make a good case against Frege based on the dependency of senses, Dummett need only establish his claim that senses depend upon expressions: appeal to an absolute conception of independence is unnece... (shrink)

The article raises an objection against michael dummett's defence of frege's thesis that incomplete expressions refer to concepts. Even if dummett has shown that predicates refer to concepts, He has not shown that the concepts referred to exist. Although dummett tries to justify the claim that concepts exist, The sense of 'exist' in this claim is not the customary one but is introduced by mere stipulation. Furthermore, Even if 'concepts exist' is true, It can be argued on (...) fregean grounds that it ascribes existence only to fregean objects, Not to concepts. (shrink)

Gödel and others held that impredicative specification is illegitimate in a constructivist framework but legitimate elsewhere. Michael Dummett argues to the contrary that impredicativity, though not necessarily illicit, needs justification regardless of whether one assumes the context is realist or constructivist. In this paper I defend the Gödelian position arguing that Dummett seeks a reduction of impredicativity to predicativity which is neither possible nor necessary. The argument is illustrated by considering first highly predicative versions of the equinumerosity axiom (...) for cardinal number and Axiom V for sets, on the one hand, then classically consistent disjunctivised versions of Axiom V which are impredicative but can prove the well-foundedness of the semantics of weaker such systems, on the other. (shrink)

نگاهی به تفسیر و انتقادات دامت از آموزه‌های فرگه پیرامون مباحث معناشناختی .

I begin this paper by orienting Michael Dummett’s work in relation to what Adrian Moore identifies as the central concern of metaphysics: making sense of things. The metaphysical issue that most exercises Dummett is the adjudication between a realist and an antirealist conception of reality, and he believes that it is by careful attention to theories of meaning that we can come to see difficulties for a realist metaphysics. Fregean realism gives way to Dummettian antirealism. But Moore is (...) not convinced. While Dummett connects truth with our capacity to know, Moore challenges Dummett to say more about this capacity. Moore accuses Dummett of attempting, with his theory of meaning, to identify limits to our sense-making. As well as running into trouble with (what he identifies as) the limit argument, Moore believes that there may also be a lurking conservatism in Dummett’s work insofar as it can be accused of making no provision for radical conceptual innovation in metaphysics. I attempt to defend Dummett against both criticisms. (shrink)

Michael Dummett (1925- ) lienee sotienjälkeisen ajan vaikutukseltaan merkittävin brittifilosofi. Hän on toiminut lähes koko aikuisen ikänsä Oxfordin yliopistossa, ensiksi opettaen matematiikan filosofiaa ja lopulta logiikan professorina, mistä virasta hän jäi eläkkeelle vuonna 1992.