Binding arguments and hidden variables

Analysis 67 (1):65-71 (2007)
Authors
Jonathan Cohen
University of California, San Diego
Abstract
o (2000), 243). In particular, the idea is that binding interactions between the relevant expressions and natural lan- guage quantifiers are best explained by the hypothesis that those expressions harbor hidden but bindable variables. Recently, however, Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore have rejected such binding arguments for the presence of hid- den variables on the grounds that they overgeneralize — that, if sound, such arguments would establish the presence of hidden variables in all sorts of ex- pressions where it is implausible that they exist (Cappelen and Lepore (2005), Cappelen and Lepore (2002)).1 In what follows we respond to Cappelen’s and Lepore’s attempted reductio by bringing out crucial disanalogies between cases where the binding argument is successful and cases where it is not. But we have a deeper purpose than merely to respond to Cappelen and Lepore: we think the attempted reductio goes wrong by not taking sufficiently seriously the nature of the binding relation that holds between quantifiers and arguments/variables, and that our criticism will serve to highlight the nature and importance of this relation.
Keywords semantics  hidden variables  binding argument
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/67.1.65
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,932
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

On Quantifier Domain Restriction.Jason Stanley & Zoltan Gendler Szabó - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (2-3):219-261.
On Quantifier Domain Restriction.Jason Stanley & Zoltán Gendler Szabó - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (2-3):219--61.
The Logical Form of Action Sentences.Donald Davidson - 1967 - In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Nominal Restriction.Jason C. Stanley - 2002 - In Georg Peter & Gerhard Preyer (eds.), Logical Form and Language. Oxford University Press. pp. 365--390.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Approximate Hidden Variables.M. Zisis - 2000 - Foundations of Physics 30 (7):971-1000.
Emulators as Sources of Hidden Cognitive Variables.Peter Gärdenfors - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):403-403.
Philosophical Implications of Bell's Theorem.Niall Shanks - 1987 - Dissertation, University of Alberta (Canada)
EPR and Bell's Theorem: A Critical Review. [REVIEW]Henry P. Stapp - 1991 - Foundations of Physics 21 (1):1-23.
Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax.Orin Percus - 2000 - Natural Language Semantics 8 (3):173-229.
Relativistic Hidden Variable Theories?Frank Arntzenius - 1994 - Erkenntnis 41 (2):207 - 231.
Von Neumann's 'No Hidden Variables' Proof: A Re-Appraisal. [REVIEW]Jeffrey Bub - 2010 - Foundations of Physics 40 (9-10):1333-1340.
Conspiracy Theories of Quantum Mechanics.Peter J. Lewis - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):359-381.
Stochastic Hidden Variables Theories.Don Robinson - 1989 - Dissertation, Indiana University

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
85 ( #74,269 of 2,273,073 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #149,768 of 2,273,073 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature