Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
McDowell I 188
DavidsonVsQuine: Even if the "empirical meaning" cannot be divided sentence by sentence into the individual sentences, this does by no means show that rational responsibility cannot be divided into sentences, sentence by sentence.
Therefore the experience must really be interpreted as a tribunal. >Tribunal of experience.
- - -
Davidson I (e) 113
Holism/Davidson: the ones of the purely linguistic meaning and the elements of his/her utterances, which are purely attributable to the beliefs of the speaker, cannot be neatly separated.
- - -
Glüer II 75
Meaning/Davidson/Glüer: a number of logical relations are also always constitutive in terms of the meaning - otherwise we could never talk about the same object.
Glüer II 78
But reasoning relations between beliefs are not comprehensible in a purely formal-logical way - the fewest beliefs emerge as logical truths from other beliefs.
- - -
Horwich I 463
Truth/Holism/DavidsonVsDummett: Truth always goes beyond the evidence for the Holism - then understanding never shows up in the manifestations which Dummett means.

Richard Rorty (1986), "Pragmatism, Davidson and Truth" in E. Lepore (Ed.) Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson, Oxford, pp. 333-55. Reprinted in:
Paul Horwich (Ed.) Theories of truth, Dartmouth, England USA 1994

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.