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will not be published.

 
I 93
Reference/Bigelow/Pargetter: we simply assume it to be given.
>Basic concepts.
Question: what are the referents of the words? And the scientific symbols?
>Words, >Symbols, >Concepts, >Expressions, >Signs.
I 97
Reference/Tarski/Bigelow/Pargetter: Tarski already had the tendency to admit as few referents as possible for our words.
>A. Tarski.
Bigelow/Pargetter: can we be even more restrictive? Yes, we can avoid referents for predicates, open sentences through more comprehensive composition rules. (extreme variant: Lit. Bigelow/Pargetter 1981)(1).
>Ontology, >Ontology/Bigelow.
Vs: but we do not gain much through this. In extreme cases, you would have a semantics without referents who would not oblige you to believe in anything. But one would have very complicated rules.
>Semantics.

1. Bigelow, J. (1981). Semantic nominalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61, pp.403-21.

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.