David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 69 (1):1 - 30 (2008)
There is a long-standing debate whether propositions, sentences, statements or utterances provide an answer to the question of what objects logical formulas stand for. Based on the traditional understanding of logic as a science of valid arguments, this question is firstly framed more exactly, making explicit that it calls not only for identifying some class of objects, but also for explaining their relationship to ordinary language utterances. It is then argued that there are strong arguments against the proposals commonly put forward in the debate. The core of the problem is that an informative account of the objects formulas stand for presupposes a theory of formalization; that is, a theory that explains what formulas may adequately substitute for an inference in proofs of validity. Although such theories are still subject to research, some consequences can be drawn from an analysis of the reasons why the common accounts featuring sentences, propositions or utterances fail. Theories of formalization cannot refer to utterances qua expressions of propositions; instead they may refer to sentences and rely on additional information about linguistic structure and pragmatic context.
|Keywords||Philosophy of logic Formalization Proposition Natural Language Logical Form|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Joseph Almog, John Perry, Howard K. Wettstein & David Kaplan (eds.) (1989). Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press, USA.
George Bealer (1993). A Solution to Frege's Puzzle. Philosophical Perspectives 7:17-60.
J. R. Cameron, Donald Kalish & Richard Montague (1967). Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning. Philosophical Quarterly 17 (66):81.
Rudolf Carnap (1988). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. University of Chicago Press.
T. S. Champlin & Mark Sainsbury (1992). Logical Forms: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Philosophical Quarterly 42 (167):243.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Baumgartner (2013). Exhibiting Interpretational and Representational Validity. Synthese:1-25.
Georg Brun & Hans Rott (2013). Interpreting Enthymematic Arguments Using Belief Revision. Synthese 190 (18):4041-4063.
Similar books and articles
Ned Markosian (2000). What Are Physical Objects? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):375-395.
A. N. Prior (1971). Objects of Thought. Oxford,Clarendon Press.
Ariel Cohen, Michael Kaminski & Johann A. Makowsky (2008). Notions of Sameness by Default and Their Application to Anaphora, Vagueness, and Uncertain Reasoning. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (3):285-306.
Avrum Stroll (1963). The Paradox of the First Person Singular Pronoun. Inquiry 6 (1-4):217 – 233.
Vladimír Svoboda & Jaroslav Peregrin (forthcoming). Logical Form and Reflective Equilibrium. Synthese.
Jose M. Saguillo (1999). Domains of Sciences, Universes of Discourse and Omega Arguments. History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):267-290.
Constantine Politis (1965). Limitations of Formalization. Philosophy of Science 32 (3/4):356-360.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #59,986 of 1,168,035 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #60,883 of 1,168,035 )
How can I increase my downloads?