Deﬂationism and truth
Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||There is a line of argument which aims to show that certain ontological claims are harmless by making use of conservativity results. The argument goes back to Hilbert who set its general frame. Hilbert’s concern was with certain abstract (ideal) entities in mathematics but the argument has been applied without discrimination to avoid ontological commitment to abstract entities in physics (Field) or to avoid ontological commitment to semantical properties like truth (Shapiro).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Gabriele Contessa (2006). Constructive Empiricism, Observability, and Three Kinds of Ontological Commitment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37 (4):454–468.
Peter Millican (2004). The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm's Argument. Mind 113 (451):437-476.
Panu Raatikainen (2002). Deflationism and Gödel’s Theorem – a Comment on Gauker. Analysis 62 (273):85–87.
Sam Baron (2013). A Truthmaker Indispensability Argument. Synthese 190 (12):2413-2427.
Joel I. Friedman (2005). Modal Platonism: An Easy Way to Avoid Ontological Commitment to Abstract Entities. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (3):227 - 273.
Howard Peacock (2011). Two Kinds of Ontological Commitment. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):79-104.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,422 of 722,940 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?