逻辑的采纳问题与相对主义

IF 0.5 0 PHILOSOPHY

Analisis Filosofico Pub Date : 2022-11-11 DOI:10.36446/af.2022.389

Daniel Boyd

{"title":"逻辑的采纳问题与相对主义","authors":"Daniel Boyd","doi":"10.36446/af.2022.389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The adoption problem was originally raised by Saul Kripke. It is supposed to present a difficulty for Willard Van Orman Quine’s view that statements of logical law are empirically confirmable. I want to argue for two things in relation to the adoption problem. The first is that the adoption problem does not really undermine the idea that statements of logical law are empirically confirmable. The second is that an analogue of the adoption problem can be developed in order to criticize a form of relativism about logic.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Adoption Problem and Relativism about Logic\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Boyd\",\"doi\":\"10.36446/af.2022.389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The adoption problem was originally raised by Saul Kripke. It is supposed to present a difficulty for Willard Van Orman Quine’s view that statements of logical law are empirically confirmable. I want to argue for two things in relation to the adoption problem. The first is that the adoption problem does not really undermine the idea that statements of logical law are empirically confirmable. The second is that an analogue of the adoption problem can be developed in order to criticize a form of relativism about logic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analisis Filosofico\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analisis Filosofico\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2022.389\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analisis Filosofico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2022.389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

收养问题最初是由索尔·克里普克提出的。这应该对奎因的逻辑规律陈述是经验可证实的观点提出一个困难。关于收养问题，我想提出两点观点。首先，采纳问题并没有真正破坏逻辑法则陈述在经验上可证实的观点。第二点是，为了批判一种关于逻辑的相对主义形式，可以发展出一种与采纳问题类似的问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Adoption Problem and Relativism about Logic

The adoption problem was originally raised by Saul Kripke. It is supposed to present a difficulty for Willard Van Orman Quine’s view that statements of logical law are empirically confirmable. I want to argue for two things in relation to the adoption problem. The first is that the adoption problem does not really undermine the idea that statements of logical law are empirically confirmable. The second is that an analogue of the adoption problem can be developed in order to criticize a form of relativism about logic.

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

Analisis Filosofico PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

15 weeks

期刊介绍： Análisis Filosófico is an open access scientific journal issued by the Argentine Society of Philosophical Analysis (SADAF). Since 1981, it offers original and unpublished papers on theoretical and practical philosophy, discussions, critical studies and reviews –in Spanish, English and Portuguese– that contribute to the development of philosophical analysis. Essential conditions for publication are conceptual accuracy, precision and novelty. Its refereeing policy is based on double-blind reviews and external assessment. It is launched twice a year on May and November.