David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 91 (3):429 - 455 (2009)
The famous “slingshot argument” developed by Church, Gödel, Quine and Davidson is often considered to be a formally strict proof of the Fregean conception that all true sentences, as well as all false ones, have one and the same denotation, namely their corresponding truth value: the true or the false . In this paper we examine the analysis of the slingshot argument by means of a non-Fregean logic undertaken recently by A.Wóitowicz and put to the test her claim that the slingshot argument is in fact circular and presupposes what it intends to prove. We show that this claim is untenable. Nevertheless, the language of non-Fregean logic can serve as a useful tool for representing the slingshot argument, and several versions of the slingshot argument in non-Fregean logics are presented. In particular, a new version of the slingshot argument is presented, which can be circumvented neither by an appeal to a Russellian theory of definite descriptions nor by resorting to an analogous “Russellian” theory of λ–terms.
|Keywords||Slingshot Argument sentential identity non-Fregean logic fact ontology situation semantics term-forming operators predicate abstraction|
|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
Jeremy Avigad & Richard Zach, The Epsilon Calculus. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jon Barwise & John Perry (1981). Semantic Innocence and Uncompromising Situations. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6 (1):387-404.
Alonzo Church (1943). Review of Rudolf Carnap, Introduction to Semantics. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 52 (3):298--304.
Donald Davidson (1967). Truth and Meaning. Synthese 17 (1):304-323.
Donald Davidson (1969). True to the Facts. Journal of Philosophy 66 (21):748-764.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (1999). Truthmaking and the Slingshot. In Uwe Meixner & Peter Simons (eds.), Metaphysics in the Post-Metaphysical Age: Papers of the 22nd International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Arhat Virdi (2009). The Slingshot Argument, Gödel's Hesitation and Tarskian Semantics. Prolegomena 8 (1):233-241.
Rafal Urbaniak (2009). Slingshot Arguments: Two Versions. The Reasoner 3.
Michael Baumgartner (2010). Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):531-556.
James O. Young (2002). The Slingshot Argument and the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Acta Analytica 17 (2):121-132.
Jaroslav Peregrin, Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, Xv + 254 Pp. [REVIEW]
John Perry (1996). Evading the Slingshot. In J. Ezquerro A. Clark (ed.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science: Categories, Consciousness, and Reasoning. Kluwer.
A. C. Genova (2001). How Wittgenstein Escapes the Slingshot. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:1-22.
Added to index2009-04-06
Total downloads44 ( #46,027 of 1,679,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,911 of 1,679,325 )
How can I increase my downloads?