Graduate studies at Western
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):527-532 (1987)
|Abstract||Rescher has presented a proof that a completed science is logically impossible; not every truth can be known. I show that the proof is valid only if it is read de re. One of its premises, however, is an obvious truth only on a de dicto reading; read de re it is false. What the proof shows, therefore, is that science has no limits and any true proposition can be known. We can, however, know it only in the meagre de re, and not in the informationally rich de dicto, sense of 'know'|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno, Fitch's Paradox of Knowability. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
John Collins (2009). The Limits of Conceivability: Logical Cognitivism and the Language Faculty. Synthese 171 (1):175 - 194.
A. B. Levison (1964). Wittgenstein and Logical Necessity. Inquiry 7 (1-4):367-373.
Steen Olaf Welding (1984). Die Struktur der Begründung Wissenschaftlicher Prognosen. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 15 (1):72-91.
Daniel Steel & S. Kedzie Hall (2011). What If the Principle of Induction Is Normative? Formal Learning Theory and Hume's Problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):171-185.
Agustín Rayo & Timothy Williamson (2003). A Completeness Theorem for Unrestricted First-Order Languages. In Jc Beall (ed.), Liars and Heaps. Oxford University Press.
Mario Gómez-Torrente (2000). A Note on Formality and Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (5):529-539.
David Ripley (2012). Conservatively Extending Classical Logic with Transparent Truth. The Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):354-378.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,406 of 741,243 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,802 of 741,243 )
How can I increase my downloads?