DOCSLIB.ORG

ETD Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ETD Template TRUTH AND ALETHEIC PARADOX by Kevin Scharp AB, Washington University, 1995 MA, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1998 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2005 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Kevin Scharp It was defended on 9 May 2005 and approved by Anil Gupta, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh John McDowell, University Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Hartry Field, Professor of Philosophy, New York University Dissertation Director: Robert Brandom, Distinguished Service Professor, University of Pittsburgh ii TRUTH AND ALETHEIC PARADOX Kevin Scharp, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2005 My objective is to provide a theory of truth that is both independently motivated and compatible with the requirement that semantic theories for truth should not demand a substantive distinction between the languages in which they are formulated and those to which they apply. I argue that if a semantic theory for truth does not satisfy this requirement, then it is unacceptable. The central claim of the theory I develop is that truth is an inconsistent concept: the rules for the proper use of truth are incompatible in the sense that they dictate that truth both applies and fails to apply to certain sentences (e.g., those that give rise to the liar and related paradoxes). The most significant challenge for a proponent of an inconsistency theory of truth is producing a plausible theory of inconsistent concepts. On the account I provide, inconsistent concepts are confused concepts. A concept is confused if, in employing it, one is committed to applying it to two or more distinct types of entities without properly distinguishing between them; that is, an employer of a confused concept thinks that two or more distinct entities are identical. I propose a semantic theory for predicates that express confused concepts, and a new many-valued relevance logic on which the semantic theory depends. This semantic theory serves as the basis for my theory of inconsistent concepts. Given this account of inconsistent concepts and my claim that truth is inconsistent, I am committed to the view that truth is confused. I use the semantic theory for confused predicates as a semantic theory for truth. On the account I advance, a proper theory of truth requires a distinction between several different types of truth predicates. I propose an account of each truth predicate, and I advocate using them as consistent replacements for the concept of truth. The result is a team of concepts that does the work of the inconsistent concept of truth without giving rise to paradoxes. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................... IX INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTERNALIZABLE SEMANTIC THEORIES .................................................................................. 11 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 11 1.2 PREVIOUS PROPOSALS ................................................................................................... 17 1.2.1 THE NATURALISM ARGUMENT .......................................................................... 17 1.2.2 THE COMPREHENSIBILITY ARGUMENT .............................................................. 19 1.2.3 EXPRESSIVE CAPACITY ARGUMENTS................................................................. 20 1.3 INTERNALIZABLE SEMANTIC THEORIES ......................................................................... 22 1.3.1 DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................... 23 1.3.2 EXAMPLE: KRIPKE’S SEMANTIC THEORY .......................................................... 34 1.4 COMPARISONS ............................................................................................................... 42 1.4.1 UNIVERSALITY................................................................................................... 43 1.4.2 SEMANTIC CLOSURE .......................................................................................... 44 1.4.3 SEMANTIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY ........................................................................... 45 1.5 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 47 2.0 INTERNALIZABILITY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 49 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 49 2.2 INTERNALIZABILITY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 50 2.3 STRONG INTERNALIZABILITY......................................................................................... 53 2.3.1 THE ARGUMENT................................................................................................. 54 2.3.2 OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES ................................................................................. 56 2.4 MODERATE INTERNALIZABILITY, TRUTH, AND NATURAL LANGUAGES......................... 68 2.4.1 THE ARGUMENT................................................................................................. 70 2.4.2 OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES ................................................................................. 75 2.5 INDEFINABILITY............................................................................................................. 90 2.6 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 93 3.0 ALETHEIC VENGEANCE........................................................................................................... 96 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 96 3.2 WHY IS INTERNALIZABILITY SO HARD?......................................................................... 98 3.2.1 CONSISTENT CONCEPTS AND NAÏVE THEORIES................................................ 101 3.2.2 TRUTH RULES AND PARADOXICALITY ............................................................. 103 3.2.3 REVENGE AND SELF-REFUTATION ................................................................... 105 3.3 TRUTH, INCONSISTENCY, AND INTERNALIZABILITY..................................................... 116 3.4 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 123 4.0 A THEORY OF INCONSISTENT CONCEPTS .............................................................................. 124 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 124 4.2 INCONSISTENT CONCEPTS ............................................................................................ 124 4.3 POLICIES FOR HANDLING INCONSISTENT CONCEPTS.................................................... 133 iv 4.3.1 THE REINTERPRETATION POLICY..................................................................... 134 4.3.2 THE CONTAINMENT POLICY............................................................................. 135 4.2.3 THE REPLACEMENT POLICY............................................................................. 136 4.4 INCONSISTENT CONCEPTS ARE CONFUSED................................................................... 138 4.5 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 140 5.0 A THEORY OF CONFUSION .................................................................................................... 142 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 142 5.2 CAMP’S THEORY OF CONFUSION ................................................................................. 142 5.2.1 THE AMBIGUITY CONDITION ........................................................................... 144 5.2.2 THE BELIEF CONDITION................................................................................... 145 5.2.3 THE TRUTH-VALUE CONDITION ...................................................................... 147 5.2.4 THE NORMATIVITY CONDITION ....................................................................... 150 5.2.5 SEMANTIC STANCES......................................................................................... 154 5.3 CAMP’S LOGIC FOR CONFUSED SENTENCES................................................................. 155 5.4 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 160 6.0 CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION AND CONCEPTUAL INCONSISTENCY ............................................ 162 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 162 6.2 FIRST-ORDER LOGIC FOR CONFUSION ......................................................................... 162 6.2.1 CONDITIONALS ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Limits in the Revision Theory More Than Just Definite Verdicts
    Journal of Philosophical Logic https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-018-9477-y Limits in the Revision Theory More Than Just Definite Verdicts Catrin Campbell-Moore1 Received: 28 July 2016 / Accepted: 11 December 2016 / © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract We present a new proposal for what to do at limits in the revision theory. The usual criterion for a limit stage is that it should agree with any definite verdicts that have been brought about before that stage. We suggest that one should not only consider definite verdicts that have been brought about but also more general properties; in fact any closed property can be considered. This more general framework is required if we move to considering revision theories for concepts that are concerned with real numbers, but also has consequences for more traditional revision theories such as the revision theory of truth. Keywords Revision theory · Self-reference · Circular definitions · Taking limits · Probability 1 Introduction The revision theory is an influential method of working with concepts that are charac- terised by circular definitions, i.e. definitions that refer to that very notion. The most widely studied instance of the revision theory is the revision theory of truth, which was initially developed by Herzberger and Gupta (independently) to study truth in a way that can account for the liar paradox: a sentence which says of itself that it is not true. They take the equivalence “ϕ is true” if and only if ϕ to be one of definition. To apply the definition one starts with a hypothesis about the interpretation of ‘true’ and then revises this hypothesis in accordance with the definition to determine a new This work was done partly while at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and partly while at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, funded by the college.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intrinsic Probability of Grand Explanatory Theories
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 4 Article 3 10-1-2020 The Intrinsic Probability of Grand Explanatory Theories Ted Poston Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Poston, Ted (2020) "The Intrinsic Probability of Grand Explanatory Theories," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 4 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.4.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 THE INTRINSIC PROBABILITY OF GRAND EXPLANATORY THEORIES Ted Poston This paper articulates a way to ground a relatively high prior probability for grand explanatory theories apart from an appeal to simplicity. I explore the possibility of enumerating the space of plausible grand theories of the universe by using the explanatory properties of possible views to limit the number of plausible theories. I motivate this alternative grounding by showing that Swinburne’s appeal to simplicity is problematic along several dimensions. I then argue that there are three plausible grand views—theism, atheism, and axiarchism—which satisfy explanatory requirements for plau- sibility. Other possible views lack the explanatory virtue of these three theo- ries. Consequently, this explanatory grounding provides a way of securing a nontrivial prior probability for theism, atheism, and axiarchism.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidential Relevance and the Grue Paradox
    科 学 哲 学31-1(1998) Evidential Relevance and the Grue Paradox Robert T. Pennock Philosophy Department The University of Texas at Austin Abstract Goodman's Grue Paradox may be intransigent as a version of the problem of induction, but may be resolved within the more lim ited context of confirmation theory in which the task is to explicate the basic notion of evidential relevance. Although the green and grue hypotheses are equivalently confirmed if we follow Goodman's use of the Hempelian instance confirmation relation, there are asym metries than can be exploited if we adopt an "ontic" confirmation theory that uses a causal notion of evidential relevance. I sort out a variety of interpretive confusions about the intended content of the definition of grue and show how the causal approach resolves each in a way that is not paradoxical. 1. Introduction If we are to make progress in confirmation theory, we must distinguish local problems having to do with the nature of evidence from the global problem of induction. Nelson Goodman posed the Grue Paradox as "The New Riddle of In- duction," but his presentation set up the problem within a Hempelian model of confirmation. In what follows I do not address the aspect of the paradox that participates in the old problem of induction but focus upon the aspect that deals with the explication of the confirmation relation, that is, the relation having to do with what counts as evidence of what. In •˜2-•˜5 1 highlight features of the para- 101 dox that are problematic when viewed with this particular question of evidential relevance in mind and in •˜6 I show how we may avoid the problems by moving from a syntactic/semantic to an ontic/causal relevance relation.' 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Contraction and Revision
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by PhilPapers Australasian Journal of Logic Contraction and revision Shawn Standefer The University of Melbourne Abstract An important question for proponents of non-contractive approaches to paradox is why contraction fails. One non-contractive theorist, Elia Zardini, offers the answer that paradoxical sentences exhibit a kind of instability. I elaborate this idea using revision theory, and I argue that while instability does motivate failures of contraction, it equally mo- tivates failure of many principles that non-contractive theorists want to maintain. 1 Introduction Non-contractive logics are receiving increased attention as ways of responding to the semantic and set-theoretic paradoxes.1 These logics are often presented in a proof-theoretic form, characterized by their rejection of the structural rules of contraction, (W `) and (` W ). X; A; A; Z ` Y X ` Y; A; A; Z (W `) (` W ) X; A; Z ` Y X ` Y; A; Z There is a philosophical question of why contraction fails. One prominent non-contractive theorist, Elia Zardini, justifies the failure of contraction by an appeal to unstable states of affairs, using some ideas from revision theory.2 1See Petersen[2000], Zardini[2011], Shapiro[2011], Beall and Murzi[2013], Mares and Paoli[2014], and Murzi and Shapiro[2015], among others. See French and Ripley [2015] for a good overview of the area. There are other approaches that reject forms of contraction for the conditional but maintain the structural rule of contraction, e.g. Brady [2006], Field[2008, 2014, 2016], Beall[2009], and Bacon[2013]. My focus will be on the approaches that reject the structural rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Hempel and Confirmation Theory
    Hempel and Confirmation Theory Jan Sprenger* June 15, 2020 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905–1997) was one of the primary exponents of logical empiricism. As a student and member of the Gesellschaft für em- pirische Philosophie in Berlin, alongside Reichenbach and Grelling, he wit- nessed the emergence of logical empiricism as a philosophical program. From the mid-1930s onwards, his contributions shaped its development, too. Hempel studied primarily in Göttingen and Berlin, but in 1929/30, he also spent a semester in Vienna studying with Carnap and partici- pated in the activities of the Vienna Circle. Both societies joined forces for organizing scientific events, and founded the journal Erkenntnis in 1930, where many seminal papers of logical empiricism were published, with Carnap and Reichenbach as editors. While the work of the Berlin philosophers is congenial to the project of the Vienna Circle, there are important differences, too. Neither Hempel nor his mentor Reichenbach identified “scientific philosophy” with the project of cleansing science of meaningless statements (e.g., Carnap 1930). Rather, Hempel extensively used a method that Carnap would apply in later works on probability and confirmation (Carnap 1950, 1952): expli- cation, that is, the replacement of a vague and imprecise pre-theoretical concept (e.g., “confirmation”) by a fruitful and precise concept (e.g., a formal confirmation criterion). Relying on the method of explication, Hempel developed adequacy conditions on a qualitative concept of con- firmation (Hempel 1943, 1945a,b), a probabilistic measure of degree of *Contact information: Center for Logic, Language and Cognition (LLC), Department of Philosophy and Education Sciences, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Sant’Ottavio 20, 10124 Torino, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Reza Negarestani – Glass Bead – 2017 1 Three Nightmares of The
    Reza Negarestani – Glass Bead – 2017 1 Three Nightmares of the Inductive Mind Of all the disquieting riddles and paradoxes found in the arsenal of epistemological scepticism— understood as a systematic and piecemeal scrutiny into the methods and paradigms of the formation and justification of knowledge-claims—one problem has particularly proved, time and again, to be a never- ending source of cognitive vexation. With few notable exceptions, philosophers and philosophically- minded scientists and statisticians (e.g., Hume, Goodman, Putnam, Stegmüller, Boltzmann and De Finetti among others) have invariably either downplayed and deflected the seriousness of this problem and its variations, or have simply given up worrying about it in the hope that it may miraculously disappear. The said problem is nothing but David Hume’s strong version of the problem of induction which, unbeknownst to Hume himself, was destined to become the superacid of methodological scepticism capable, in the blink of an eye, of eating away the foundation of any epistemic project built on naïve forms of empiricism and rationalism. It is often the case that philosophers who pose sceptical problems recoil in fear once they realize the far- reaching implications of such problems, and Hume, with his problem of induction, is no exception. They rush into defusing their inadvertent exercise in scepticism. But systematic scepticism is something akin to an explosive chemical chain reaction. Once it is set off, with every passing minute it becomes more difficult to extinguish the flames. Pour on more water, and the fire spreads to areas you never imagined flammable. A genuine philosopher—regardless of her alliances—seeks to examine how far the fire spreads.
    [Show full text]
  • PHIL 110A Introduction to Philosophy: Knowledge and Reality Syllabus
    PHIL 110A Introduction to Philosophy: Knowledge and Reality Fall 2015 Syllabus Instructor: Prof. Doreen Fraser E-mail (for quick questions): [email protected] Office Hours (for substantive questions): Tuesdays 1-2p.m. and Thursdays 11:30a.m.-12:30p.m. Office: HH 330 Teaching assistant: Phillipe Beriault E-mail (for quick questions): [email protected] Office Hours (for substantive questions): See the Calendar on LEARN Office: HH 337 Course Meeting Time and Location: Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays 10:30-11:20p.m. in AL 124 Course Description This course provides an introduction to some central questions about knowledge and reality. What is knowledge? What are our best sources of knowledge? What are the distinguishing features of our best sources of knowledge? What sorts of things exist? How do we know? What is the relationship between our minds and our brains? We will study answers to these questions offered by a selection of philosophers past and present, including Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Russell, P.S. Churchland, Thagard, and Searle. Methods for analyzing and assessing arguments will be an important focus of the course. Readings All of the texts for the course are available free of charge online from either the LEARN course web site or the library e-reserves web site. Required readings for each class are listed on the attached course schedule. All of the readings listed on the course schedule are required. Students are expected to read each assigned text prior to the class for which it is assigned. The assigned texts should be brought to class. You will probably find that it is necessary to re- read the texts at least once after they are discussed in class.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Grue' Problem Really Show? Re-Reading of Frank Jackson, 'Grue', Journal of Philosophy 5 (1975), Pp.113-131
    Okasha, S. (2007). What does Goodman's 'Grue' Problem Really Show? re-reading of Frank Jackson, 'Grue', Journal of Philosophy 5 (1975), pp.113-131. Philosophical Papers, 36(3), 483-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568640709485211 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1080/05568640709485211 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is an author's accepted manuscript of an article published in Philosophical Papers, Volume 36, Issue 3, 2007, copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/05568640709485211 University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Philosophical Papers Vol. 36, N o. 3 (N ovem ber 2007): 483-502 W hat Does Goodm an’s ‘Grue’ Problem Really Show? Samir Okasha Re-reading of Frank Jackson, ‘Grue’, Journal of Philosophy 5 (1975), pp.113-131.∗ Introduction N elson Goodm an devised his fam ous ‘grue’ exam ple in order to show that the sim ple ‘straight rule’ of induction leads to inconsistency unless restricted to the so-called ‘projectible’ predicates. In his searching critique of Goodm an’s discussion, Frank Jackson (1975) argued that on careful exam ination, Goodm an’s alleged paradox dissolves—the naïve straight rule does not lead to inconsistency, and does not need to be restricted to predicates of any particular type. Jackson’s article seem s to have been overlooked by m uch of the subsequent literature on ‘grue’; indicative of this is that virtually all philosophers today believe that Goodm an did show what, according to Jackson, he did not show.1 The structure of this paper is as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Anil Gupta, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences: Biographical Bibliometric Fact Sheets
    Anil Gupta, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences: Biographical Bibliometric Fact Sheets E. R. Prakasan and V. L. Kalyane Scientific Information Resource Division, Knowledge Management Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, India – 400 085 *e-mail: [email protected] Anil Gupta, Distinguished Professor Logic, Philosophy of Language, Metaphysics, Epistemology PhD, Pittsburgh, 1977 [email protected] Anil Gupta is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, professor of History and Philosophy of Science, and a fellow of the Center for Philosophy of Science. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Before joining the department in 2001, he taught at Indiana, Illinois at Chicago, and McGill [1]. Materials and Methods Standard bibliometric methods were used [2-70] for the analysis of the Bibliography (see Appendix) of Anil Gupta [71-117]. Results He is the author of The Logic of Common Nouns (Yale, 1980) and Empiricism and Experience (Oxford, 2006), and a co-author (with Nuel Belnap) of The Revision Theory of Truth (MIT, 1993). Gupta has received fellowships from the NEH and the ACLS, and he was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, in 1998-99. Gupta’s main research interests lie in logic, philosophy of language, metaphysics, and epistemology. Topics that are of special interest to him include definitions, truth, meaning, and perception. 50 7 Number of publications 45 Cumulative Number of Publications 6 40 ations c i 35 ons ubl 5 P cati 30 of 4 25 publi
    [Show full text]
  • Conditionals in Theories of Truth⋆
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Conditionals in Theories of Truth? Anil Gupta · Shawn Standefer Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract We argue that distinct conditionals|conditionals that are gov- erned by different logics|are needed to formalize the rules of Truth Intro- duction and Truth Elimination. We show that revision theory, when enriched with the new conditionals, yields an attractive theory of truth. We go on to compare this theory with one recently proposed by Hartry Field. Keywords Truth, paradox, revision theory, conditionals, circular definitions ? This is a near-final version of our paper published in the Journal of Philosophical Logic. Small differences may exist, so please cite the published version, available at http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-015-9393-3. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh E-mail: [email protected] Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne E-mail: [email protected] 2 Anil Gupta, Shawn Standefer 1 Introduction The conditionals we will be concerned with are those used in stating the rules for truth, Truth Introduction (TI) and Truth Elimination (TE): (TI) If A, then `A' is true; and (TE) If `A' is true, then A. We will argue that the two conditionals here are different: they do not mean the same; they are not governed by the same logic. In outline, our argument will be as follows. We will take it that (TI) and (TE) are the best formulations we have of the principal rules governing truth. Aristotle suggested these rules in the Categories; the medievals called them `Aristotle's Rules'; and at least on this bit of logic no one has improved on Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmation and Induction
    Confirmation and Induction Jan Sprenger∗ Abstract Scientific knowledge is based on induction, that is, ampliative inferences from experience. This chapter reviews attacks on and defenses of induction, as well as attempts to spell out rules of inductive inference. Particular attention is paid to the degree of confirmation of a hypothesis, its role in inductive inference and the Bayesian explications of that concept. Finally, the chapter compares Bayesian and frequentist approaches to statistical inference. Keywords: confirmation, degree of confirmation, induction, probability, inductive logic, Bayesianism, statistical inference. ∗Contact information: Tilburg Center for Logic, Ethics and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS), Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]. Webpage: www.laeuferpaar.de 1 1 The Problems of Induction Induction is a method of inference that aims at gaining empirical knowledge. It has two main characteristics: First, it is based on experience. (The term “experience” is used interchangeably with “observations” and “evidence”.) Second, induction is ampliative, that is, the conclusions of an inductive inference are not necessary, but contingent. The first feature makes sure that induction targets empirical knowledge, the second feature distinguishes induction from other modes of inference, such as deduction, where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Induction can have many forms. The most simple one is enumerative induction: inferring a general principle or making a prediction based on the observation of par- ticular instances. For example, if we have observed 100 black ravens and no non-black ravens, we may predict that also raven #101 will be black.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth & Paradox
    c Toby Meadows Online v0.7 Truth & Paradox Draft Toby Meadows c Toby Meadows Online v0.7 Draft 3 READ ME: These notes are still drafts: • there will be typos; • there may be errors; and • I plan to augment them. That said, they should be complete enough to be useful and I hope you find them so. I plan to update this document on my website: https://sites.google.com/site/tobymeadows/. Unless you’ve already come from there, it could be worth looking there for a more recent version of Toby Meadows c this document. Draft Also, if you do spot any problems or there’s something you don’t like or understand, I’d like to hear about it. Please drop me an email at: [email protected]. Online v0.7 Contents Chapter 1. om liar sentences to Kripke’s construction 5 1.1. The Liar Paradox 6 1.2. Getting formal 11 1.3. What should we do? 21 1.4. Tarski’s solution 22 Chapter 2. Kripke’s construction, its cousins & what you can do with them 29 2.1. Kripke’s solution 30 2.2. Contemporary research in formal theories of truth 40 2.3. Consistency & non-triviality 41 Bibliography 44 Toby Meadows c Draft Online v0.7 4 CHAPTER 1 om liar sentences to Kripke’s construction This week, we’re going to build up some of the technical basics involved in understanding the liar paradox and some of the contemporary approaches to it on the market. We’ll run through the following sections: (1) The liar paradox - we’ll develop the basic ingredients of the paradox, investigate some problematic solutions and in so doing make things more precise.
    [Show full text]