Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument

Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):531-556 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to the standard opinions in the literature, blocking the unacceptable consequences of the notorious slingshot argument requires imposing constraints on the metaphysics of facts or on theories of definite descriptions (or class abstracts). This paper argues that both of these well-known strategies to rebut the slingshot overshoot the mark. The slingshot, first and foremost, raises the question as to the adequate logical formalization of statements about facts, i.e. of factual contexts. It will be shown that a rigorous application of Quine’s maxim of shallow analysis to formalizations of factual contexts paves the way for an account of formalizing such contexts which blocks the slingshot without ramifications for theories of facts or definite descriptions.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-03-09

Downloads
127 (#140,722)

6 months
9 (#294,961)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Baumgartner
Bergen University

Citations of this work

Do We Need Mathematical Facts?Wojciech Krysztofiak - 2014 - History and Philosophy of Logic 35 (1):1-32.
Hyper-Slingshot. Is Fact-Arithmetic Possible?Wojciech Krysztofiak - 2015 - Foundations of Science 20 (1):59-76.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic.Rudolf Carnap - 1947 - Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
On Denoting.Bertrand Russell - 1905 - Mind 14 (56):479-493.
Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 17 (2):278-279.

View all 69 references / Add more references