Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 32 (3/4):361-367 (1965)
|Abstract||W. V. O. Quine's well-known attack upon the analytic-synthetic distinction is held to affect only one of the two species of analytic statements he distinguishes. In particular it is not directed at and does not affect the so-called logical truths. In this paper the scope of Quine's attack is extended so as to embrace the logical truths as well. It is shown that the unclarifiability of the notion of 'synonymy' deprives us not only of "analytic statements that are obtainable from logical truths by the replacement of synonyms with synonyms" but of "logical truths" themselves|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Edward N. Zalta (1988). Logical and Analytic Truths That Are Not Necessary. Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):57-74.
R. T. Cook (2012). The T-Schema is Not a Logical Truth. Analysis 72 (2):231-239.
Matthew McKeon (2004). On the Substitutional Characterization of First-Order Logical Truth. History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (3):205-224.
Jack Arnold & Stewart Shapiro (2007). Where in the (World Wide) Web of Belief is the Law of Non-Contradiction? Noûs 41 (2):276–297.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? Erkenntnis 48 (1):85-104.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? On Fallacy in Quine. Erkenntnis 48 (1):81 - 99.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #25,106 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?