Analyticity and Ontology

Analyticity theorists, as I will call them, endorse the doctrine of analyticity in ontology : if some truth φ analytically entails the existence of certain things, then a theory that contains φ but does not claim that those things exist is no more ontologically parsimonious than a theory that also claims that they exist. Suppose, for instance, that the existence of a table in a certain location is analytically entailed by the existence and features of certain particles in that location. The doctrine implies that the table’s existence requires nothing more of the world than that those particles exist and bear the features in question. Analyticity theorists have alleged that this idea may be used to defend controversial existence claims against a battery of objections. I argue that this style of defense fails, because the doctrine faces counter-examples. An existence claim may be analytically entailed by some truth and still report a substantial further fact. These counter-examples suggest a picture according to which the theoretical utility of analyticity in the investigation of extra-linguistic reality is virtually nil. Let’s start with a story. A carpenter formulates a plan to make a table. She assembles some wood, shapes the pieces, and joins them according to the plan. What has the carpenter accomplished? How has she changed the way things are? She formulated and executed a plan, shaped some wood, and has more generally done what in the literature is called “arranging particles table-wise” in a certain spatiotemporal location L. She has also produced a table in that 1The story I am telling makes some physical assumptions. In particular, it assumes that the wood from which the table is produced is made of particles, rather than, say, atomless gunk. I think the arguments of this paper would be unaffected if the physics of the story turns out to be false.