Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (4):621 – 643 (2004)
|Abstract||In his recent book, Stephen Neale provides an extended defence of the claim that Gödel's slingshot has dramatic consequences for fact theorists (and, in particular, for fact theorists who look with favour on referential treatments of definite descriptions). I argue that the book-length treatment provides no strengthening of the case that Neale has made elsewhere for this implausible claim. Moreover, I also argue that various criticisms of Neale's case that I made on a previous occasion have met with no successful resistance. If Neale is serious about facing facts, then he needs to face the fact that his central contentions are unsupportable.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Arhat Virdi (2009). The Slingshot Argument, Gödel's Hesitation and Tarskian Semantics. Prolegomena 8 (1):233-241.
A. C. Graham (1985). Value, Fact and Facing Facts. Journal of Value Inquiry 19 (1):35-41.
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2003). Review of "Facing Facts" by Stephen Neale. [REVIEW] Sats - Nordic Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):177-81.
S. Neale (2001). Facing Facts. Clarendon Press.
Stephen Neale & Josh Dever (1997). Slingshots and Boomerangs. Mind 106 (421):143-168.
Julian Dodd (2003). Facing Facts by Stephen Neale Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. XV + 254. £25. Philosophy 78 (1):123-145.
Jaroslav Peregrin, Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, Xv + 254 Pp. [REVIEW]
John MacFarlane (2002). Facing Facts. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 200208.
Greg Restall (2004). One Way to Face Facts. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):420–426.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #90,445 of 722,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?