{"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}
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.