Bogus singular terms and substitution salva denotatione
The Reasoner 3 (2009)
| Abstract | This is the third installment of a paper which deals with comparison and evaluation of the standard slingshot argument (for the claim that all true sentences, if they refer, refer to the same object) with the doxastic formulation. | |||||||||
| Keywords | slingshot philosophy of language substitution | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAri Maunu (2006). Alethic Statements Are Not Intensional. Teorema 25 (3):53-61.
Steven E. Boër (2009). Propositions and the Substitution Anomaly. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (5):549 - 586.
John Perry (1996). Evading the Slingshot. In J. Ezquerro A. Clark (ed.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science: Categories, Consciousness, and Reasoning. Kluwer.
Michael Nelson (2002). Puzzling Pairs. Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):109 - 119.
Yaroslav Shramko & Heinrich Wansing (2009). The Slingshot Argument and Sentential Identity. Studia Logica 91 (3):429 - 455.
Rafal Urbaniak (2009). Slingshot Arguments: Two Versions. The Reasoner 3.
James O. Young (2002). The Slingshot Argument and the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Acta Analytica 17 (1):121-132.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-17Total downloads13 ( #89,057 of 556,803 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,803 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
