Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute

Complaints - Corrections

Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II


What is wrong?
Other metadata
Excerpt or content

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

VII 160f
Truth/Provability/Langford: although the following schemes are in the quantifier provable, the corresponding rates are not logically true: (1) (Ex) (Fx v ~ Fx ) - (2) (x) Fx > (Ex) Fx - their truth depends on whether there is something that is referred to it, or whether the universe is not simply empty - QuineVs: analyticity says nothing about existence - QuineVs: Error: " Fa v ~ Fa " implies not logical "(Ex) (Fx v ~ Fx) " - although we accept that a logically true sentence is implied by any but Langford cannot do that - this takes the existential generalization - also VsLangford: from propositions that contain the meaning of "a" and "F" as constituents , one cannot derive existence - Likelihood of word and object - instead of the existence of objects one could simply assume the existence of the proposition - but meaning is not an "entity" - Langford/Quine: he is right when he concludes "a exists" from an atom sentence "Fa" , but not from " ~ Fa " - (( s ) separately.)

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.