|Abstract||Throughout the study of what have come to be known as first-, second-, and higher-order languages, what has been primarily overlooked is that these languages are abstractions. Many well known paradoxes, we shall see, arose because of the elementary level of simplification which has been involved in the abstract languages studied. Straightforward resolutions of the paradoxes immediately appear merely through attention to languages of greater sophistication, notably natural language, of course. The basic problem has been exclusive attention to a theory in place of what it is a theory of, leading to a focus on mathematical manipulation, which ‘brackets off ’ any natural language reading.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
J. P. Ressayre (1988). Formal Languages Defined by the Underlying Structure of Their Words. Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (4):1009-1026.
Professor Henry Laycock (2005). Variables, Generality and Existence: Considerations on the Notion of a Concept-Script. .
Paula Olmos & Luis Vega (2011). The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 25 (4):415-426.
D. Macbeth (2012). Seeing How It Goes: Paper-and-Pencil Reasoning in Mathematical Practice. Philosophia Mathematica 20 (1):58-85.
Adam Morton (1997). Hypercomparatives. Synthese 111 (1):97-114.
John L. Bell, Infinitary Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #169,891 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?