The Modal and Epistemic Arguments Against the Invariance Criterion for Logical Terms
نویسنده
چکیده
There is a criticism of the isomorphism-invariance criterion for logical terms that is expressed in several variations in the literature on logical terms. The criticism in most cases was aimed against the criterion of invariance under isomorphism, but it can be seen as applying to criteria of invariance under other transformations just as well. The gist of the objection is that invariance criteria pertain only to the extension of logical terms, and neglect the meaning, or the way the extension is fixed. A term, so claim the critics, can be invariant under isomorphisms and yet involve a contingent or a posteriori component in its meaning, thus compromising the necessity or apriority of logical truth and logical consequence. The criticism has been expressed in different variations by various authors. The first to present the criticism, to the extent of my knowledge, is McCarthy. Others include McGee
منابع مشابه
Husserl’s Arguments against Logical Psychologism and his Conception of Ideal Objects
Husserl’s main arguments against Logical Psychologism (LP) are found in the Prolegomena to the Logical Investigations. The core commitment of LP is the thesis that logic is explanatorily reducible to psychology. This was the dominant view of the foundations of logic at the time Husserl wrote the Logical Investigations. The relevance of Husserl’s arguments in the Prolegomena is not, however, res...
متن کاملیافتن الگوهای مکرّر در قرآن کریم بهکمک روشهای متنکاوی
Quran’s Text differs from any other texts in terms of its exceptional concepts, ideas and subjects. To recognize the valuable implicit patterns through a vast amount of data has lately captured the attention of so many researchers. Text Mining provides the grounds to extract information from texts and it can help us reach our objective in this regard. In recent years, Text Mining on Quran and e...
متن کاملBuilding an Epistemic Logic for Argumentation
In this paper, we study a multi-agent setting in which each agent is aware of a set of arguments. The agents can discuss and persuade each other by putting forward arguments and counter-arguments. In such a setting, what an agent will do, i.e. what argument she will utter, may depend on what she knows about the knowledge of other agents. For example, an agent does not want to put forward an arg...
متن کاملA Comparative Analysis of Epistemic and Root Modality in Two selected English Books in the Field of Applied Linguistics Written by English Native and Iranian Non-native Writers
Academic discourse has always been the focus of many linguists, especially those who have been involved with English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and discourse analysis. Persuasion, as part of rhetorical structure of academic writing, is partly achieved by employing modality markers. Adopting a descriptive design, the present study was carried out to compare the use of modality markers in terms...
متن کاملPropositional Identity and Logical Necessity
In two early papers, Max Cresswell constructed two formal logics of propositional identity, and , which he observed to be respectively deductively equivalent to modal logics 4 and 5. Cresswell argued informally that these equivalences respectively “give . . . evidence” for the correctness of 4 and 5 as logics of broadly logical necessity. In this paper, I describe weaker propositiona...
متن کامل