事情的真相

Jared Warren
{"title":"事情的真相","authors":"Jared Warren","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190086152.003.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter concerns the status of the conventionalist theory developed, argued for, and defended throughout the book. It begins by discussing the views that historical conventionalists had about their own conventionalist theories and addresses a recent controversy about whether Carnap was truly a conventionalist. The chapter then argues that conventionalism is the best explanation of the logical and mathematical facts, assessing it according to a number of different theoretical virtues. Then two metaobjections are considered, one based on philosophical progress, and the other based on peer disagreement. Despite the chapter’s defense of conventionalism, it ends by expressing some very personal doubts.","PeriodicalId":127100,"journal":{"name":"Shadows of Syntax","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Facts of the Matter\",\"authors\":\"Jared Warren\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190086152.003.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter concerns the status of the conventionalist theory developed, argued for, and defended throughout the book. It begins by discussing the views that historical conventionalists had about their own conventionalist theories and addresses a recent controversy about whether Carnap was truly a conventionalist. The chapter then argues that conventionalism is the best explanation of the logical and mathematical facts, assessing it according to a number of different theoretical virtues. Then two metaobjections are considered, one based on philosophical progress, and the other based on peer disagreement. Despite the chapter’s defense of conventionalism, it ends by expressing some very personal doubts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Shadows of Syntax\",\"volume\":\"132 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Shadows of Syntax\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190086152.003.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shadows of Syntax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190086152.003.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这一章关注贯穿全书的传统主义理论的发展、论证和辩护的地位。它首先讨论了历史上的约定主义者对他们自己的约定主义理论的看法,并讨论了最近关于卡尔纳普是否真的是一个约定主义者的争论。然后,本章论证了约定主义是对逻辑和数学事实的最佳解释,并根据许多不同的理论优点对其进行了评估。然后考虑两种元异议,一种基于哲学进步,另一种基于同行分歧。尽管这一章为传统主义辩护,但它以表达一些非常个人的怀疑结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Facts of the Matter
This chapter concerns the status of the conventionalist theory developed, argued for, and defended throughout the book. It begins by discussing the views that historical conventionalists had about their own conventionalist theories and addresses a recent controversy about whether Carnap was truly a conventionalist. The chapter then argues that conventionalism is the best explanation of the logical and mathematical facts, assessing it according to a number of different theoretical virtues. Then two metaobjections are considered, one based on philosophical progress, and the other based on peer disagreement. Despite the chapter’s defense of conventionalism, it ends by expressing some very personal doubts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信