The Reasoner 3 (2009)
| Authors |
|
| 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 | (categorize this paper) |
| Options |
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
|
Download options
PhilArchive copy
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy Papers currently archived: 65,581
External links
(no proxy) Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver..
- Configure custom resolver
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Metaphysics, Substitution Salva Veritate and the Slingshot Argument.Robert J. Stainton - 2005 - In Alex Barber (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier. pp. 73--82.
Evading the Slingshot.John Perry - 1996 - In J. Ezquerro A. Clark (ed.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science: Categories, Consciousness, and Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Alethic Statements Are Not Intensional.Ari Maunu - 2006 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 25 (3):53-61.
The Slingshot Argument and the Correspondence Theory of Truth.James O. Young - 2002 - Acta Analytica 17 (2):121-132.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2010-08-17
Total views
72 ( #152,622 of 2,461,470 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #298,755 of 2,461,470 )
2010-08-17
Total views
72 ( #152,622 of 2,461,470 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #298,755 of 2,461,470 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads
