重构普特南的模型论论证

I. Douven
{"title":"重构普特南的模型论论证","authors":"I. Douven","doi":"10.2307/2564709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Among those addressed by Putnam’s model-theoretic argument it is common opinion that the argument is invalid because question-begging. If the standard analysis of the argument is along the right lines, then what has been called the ‘just more theory move’ is to be held responsible for this. In the present paper, an alternative reading of Putnam’s argument is offered that makes the ‘just more theory move’ come out perfectly legitimate, and the argument as a whole valid.","PeriodicalId":161799,"journal":{"name":"Logic group preprint series","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putnam’s Model-Theoretic Argument Reconstructed\",\"authors\":\"I. Douven\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/2564709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Among those addressed by Putnam’s model-theoretic argument it is common opinion that the argument is invalid because question-begging. If the standard analysis of the argument is along the right lines, then what has been called the ‘just more theory move’ is to be held responsible for this. In the present paper, an alternative reading of Putnam’s argument is offered that makes the ‘just more theory move’ come out perfectly legitimate, and the argument as a whole valid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":161799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logic group preprint series\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logic group preprint series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/2564709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic group preprint series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2564709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

在帕特南的模型论论证中,人们普遍认为该论证是无效的,因为它提出了问题。如果对论证的标准分析是沿着正确的路线进行的,那么所谓的“只是更多的理论行动”应该对此负责。在本文中,提供了对Putnam论点的另一种解读,使“只是更多的理论行动”变得完全合法,并且整个论点是有效的。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Putnam’s Model-Theoretic Argument Reconstructed
Among those addressed by Putnam’s model-theoretic argument it is common opinion that the argument is invalid because question-begging. If the standard analysis of the argument is along the right lines, then what has been called the ‘just more theory move’ is to be held responsible for this. In the present paper, an alternative reading of Putnam’s argument is offered that makes the ‘just more theory move’ come out perfectly legitimate, and the argument as a whole valid.
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
期刊最新文献
The Henkin Sentence ω-Models of finite set theory Categorial Grammar and Formal Semantics Categories of theories and interpretations The Worm principle
×
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