Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Slingshot Argument and Sentential Identity

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avigad, J., and Zach, R., ‘The Epsilon Calculus’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/epsilon-calculus/>.

  2. Barwise J., Perry J.: ‘Semantic innocence and uncompromising situations’. Midwest Studies in the Philosophy of Language VI, 387–403 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barwise J., and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, 1983.

  4. Beaney,M. (ed. and transl.), The Frege Reader, Blackwell, 1997.

  5. Carnap, R., Introduction to Semantics, Harvard University Press, 1942.

  6. Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity. A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, University of Chicago Press, 1947.

  7. Church A.: ‘Review of Rudolf Carnap, Introduction to Semantics’. The Philosophical Review 52, 298–304 (1943)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Church, A., Introduction to Mathematical Logic, revised and enlarged edition, Princeton University Press, 1956.

  9. Davidson D.: ‘Truth and meaning’. Synthese 17, 304–323 (1967)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davidson D.: ‘True to the facts’. Journal of Philosophy 66, 748–764 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Drai D.: ‘The slingshot argument: an improved version’. Ratio 15, 194–204 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunn J.M.: ‘Relevant predication 1: the formal theory’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 16, 347–381 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fitting M., and R. Mendelsohn, First-order Modal Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

  14. Føllesdal D.: ‘Situation semantics and the ‘slingshot’ argument’. Erkenntnis 19, 91–98 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frege, G., ‘Function und Begriff’, Vortrag, gehalten in der Sitzung vom 9. Januar 1891 der Jenaischen Gesellschaft f¨ur Medizin und Naturwissenschaft, H. Pohle, Jena, 1891.

  16. Frege G.: ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’. Zeitschrift f¨ur Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50 (1892)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gödel, K., ‘Russell’s mathematical logic’, in: P.A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Northwestern University Press, 125–153, 1944.

  18. von Heusinger, K., Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen, Studia Grammatica 43, Akademie Verlag, 1997.

  19. Hilbert, D., and P. Bernays, Grundlagen der Mathematik, Bd. 2, Springer-Verlag, 1970.

  20. Lewis C.I.: ‘The modes of meaning’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4, 236–249 (1943)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. MacFarlane, J., ‘Review of Stephen Neale, Facing Facts’, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2002 (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1117).

  22. McGinn C.: ‘A note on the Frege argument’. Mind 85, 422–423 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Neale S.: ‘The Philosophical significance of Gödel’s slingshot’. Mind 104, 761–825 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Neale, S., Facing Facts, Oxford University Press, 2001.

  25. Olson, K., An Essay on Facts, Lecture Notes No. 6, CSLI Publications, 1987.

  26. Omyła M.: ‘Possible worlds in the language of non-Fregean logic’. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 6(19), 7–15 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Omyła M.: ‘Remarks on non-Fregean logic’. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 10(23), 21–31 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Oppy G.: ‘The philosophical insignificance of Gödel’s slingshot. Response to Stephen Neale’. Mind 106, 121–141 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Perry, J., ‘Evading the slingshot’, in: A. Clark, J. Ezquerro, and J. Larrazabal (eds.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Categories, Consciousness, and Reasoning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.

  30. Quine, W. v.O., ‘Reference and modality’, in: W. v.O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, 139–159, 1953.

  31. Quine, W.v.O., Word and Object, John Wiley and Sons and MIT Press, 1960.

  32. Ruffino M.: ‘Church’s and Gödel’s slingshot arguments’. Abstracta 1, 23–39 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Russell, B., Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, George Allen and Unwin, 1919.

  34. Searle, J., ‘Truth: a reconsideration of Strawson’s view’, in: L. E. Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of P. F. Strawson, Open Court, 1995.

  35. Suszko, R., ‘Abolition of the Fregean Axiom’, in: R. Parikh (ed.), Logic Colloquium, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 453, Springer Verlag, 169–239, 1975.

  36. Suszko R.: ‘The Fregean axiom and Polish mathematical logic in the 1920’s’. Studia Logica 36, 373–380 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wagner S.: ‘California semantics meets the Great Fact’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27, 430–455 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Widerker D.: ‘The extensionality argument’. Nous 17, 457–468 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wilson G.: ‘On definite and indefinite descriptions’. Philosophical Review 87, 48–76 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wójcicki R.: ‘R. Suszko’s situational semantics’. Studia Logica 43, 326–327 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wójcicki, R., Theory of Logical Calculi. Basic Theory of Consequence Operations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.

  42. Wójtowicz, A., ‘The Slingshot Argument and Non-Fregean Logic’, in: A. Brozek, J. Jadacki, and W. Strawinski (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science in Warsaw, Vol. 2, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 185–192, 2005.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, State Pedagogical University, 50086, Krivoi Rog, Ukraine

    Yaroslav Shramko

  2. Institute of Philosophy, Dresden University of Technology, 01062, Dresden, Germany

    Heinrich Wansing

Authors
  1. Yaroslav Shramko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heinrich Wansing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heinrich Wansing.

Additional information

Edited by Yaroslav Shramko and Heinrich Wansing

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shramko, Y., Wansing, H. The Slingshot Argument and Sentential Identity. Stud Logica 91, 429–455 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9182-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9182-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation