What is PA + con(PA) about, and where?

Abstract Justin Clarke-Doane offers what purports to be a stand-alone argument, relying on Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that if we hold PA + Con(PA) and ~ are equally true of their intended subjects, then there is no objective fact as whether consistent. It shown the argument fallacious, although illuminating: The fallaciousness arises from 20 th -century shift in our understanding interpreted languages view—derived experience language—of sentences intrinsically one which sharply distinguishes syntax semantics, treats uninterpreted syntactic forms endowed with interpretations by models. this syntax/semantic distinction, because it “unintuitive” induces fallacies such Clarke-Doane’s exemplifies.