Lewisian Naturalness and a new Sceptical Challenge

IF 0.6 Q2 LOGIC Logic and Logical Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-02-19 DOI:10.12775/LLP.2021.002
Matej Drobňák
{"title":"Lewisian Naturalness and a new Sceptical Challenge","authors":"Matej Drobňák","doi":"10.12775/LLP.2021.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The criterion of naturalness represents David Lewis’s attempt to answer some of the sceptical arguments in (meta-) semantics by comparing the naturalness of meaning candidates. Recently, the criterion has been challenged by a new sceptical argument. Williams argues that the criterion cannot rule out the candidates which are not permuted versions of an intended interpretation. He presents such a candidate  the arithmetical interpretation (a specific instantiation of Henkin’s model), and he argues that it opens up the possibility of Pythagorean worlds, i.e. the worlds similar to ours in which the arithmetical interpretation is the best candidate for a semantic theory. The aim of this paper is a) to reconsider the general conditions for the applicability of Lewis’s criterion of naturalness and b) to show that Williams’s new sceptical challenge is based on a problematic assumption that the arithmetical interpretation is independent of fundamental properties and relations. As I show, if the criterion of naturalness is applied properly, it can respond even to the new sceptical challenge.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2021.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The criterion of naturalness represents David Lewis’s attempt to answer some of the sceptical arguments in (meta-) semantics by comparing the naturalness of meaning candidates. Recently, the criterion has been challenged by a new sceptical argument. Williams argues that the criterion cannot rule out the candidates which are not permuted versions of an intended interpretation. He presents such a candidate  the arithmetical interpretation (a specific instantiation of Henkin’s model), and he argues that it opens up the possibility of Pythagorean worlds, i.e. the worlds similar to ours in which the arithmetical interpretation is the best candidate for a semantic theory. The aim of this paper is a) to reconsider the general conditions for the applicability of Lewis’s criterion of naturalness and b) to show that Williams’s new sceptical challenge is based on a problematic assumption that the arithmetical interpretation is independent of fundamental properties and relations. As I show, if the criterion of naturalness is applied properly, it can respond even to the new sceptical challenge.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
刘易斯自然性与新的怀疑挑战
自然标准代表了大卫·刘易斯试图通过比较意义候选者的自然性来回答(元)语义学中的一些怀疑论点。最近,这一标准受到了一种新的怀疑论调的挑战。威廉姆斯认为,该标准不能排除那些不是预期解释的排列版本的候选。他提出了这样一个候选者算术解释(亨金模型的一个具体实例),他认为它打开了毕达哥拉斯世界的可能性,即与我们的世界相似的世界,其中算术解释是语义理论的最佳候选者。本文的目的是a)重新考虑Lewis的自然准则的适用性的一般条件,b)表明Williams的新的怀疑挑战是基于一个有问题的假设,即算术解释是独立于基本性质和关系的。正如我所展示的,如果自然的标准得到适当的应用,它甚至可以对新的怀疑主义挑战作出反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Paradoxes versus Contradictions in Logic of Sentential Operators Constructive Logic is Connexive and Contradictory KD45 with Propositional Quantifiers Logical Forms, Substitutions and Information Types Logical Forms: Validity and Variety of Formalizations
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1