DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Statement Nov 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Statement Nov 2011 Research Statement Phil Corkum, University of Alberta October 2011 My current research is on Aristotle’s metaontology and metaphysics of properties. I ascribe to Aristotle the view that universals are mereological sums of individuals. The relationship holding between a universal and its particular instances is then the distinctive ontological dependence relationship holding between a whole and its parts: namely, constitution. The research has significance for our understanding of Aristotle’s semantics and philosophy of logic as well as the history of metaphysics. The work emerges from my “Aristotle on Ontological Dependence” Phronesis 2008, where I argue that ontological independence in Aristotle is not a capacity for separate existence.1 In the Phronesis article, I hint that there is not a single notion of ontological dependency in Aristotle but a variety of notions, and much of my subsequent work might be seen as cashing out this teaser. For example, “Attention, Perception and Thought in Aristotle,” Dialogue 2010, concerns in part the independence ascribed to the soul. Aristotle holds that there are individuals and universals in both substantial and such non-substance categories as quality and quantity. “Aristotle on Non- substantial Individuals,” Ancient Philosophy 2009 and “Aristotle on Mathematical Truth,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy forthcoming, concern the cross- categorical dependency tie obtaining between a substance and an item in a non-substance category. My most recent work concerns the infra-categorical tie obtaining between a universal and an individual. In my “Aristotle on Predication,” under review,2 I hold off identifying universals with mereological sums of individuals and argue for the weaker claim that a mereological Research Statement Phil Corkum, University of Alberta October 2011 sum is the contribution a universal term makes to the conditions under which any sentence containing that term expresses a true thought. The relevant mereological relation is what became known as the quantitative part-whole relation, and there's textual evidence to characterize the quantitative mereology as a proper part mereology (irreflexive, transitive, weakly supplementary). The ascription sheds light on such aspects of Aristotle's philosophy of language as the existential import of universal affirmations, quantification and negation, and other issues. I discuss the first of these consequences in “Existential Import in Aristotle,” currently in draft form. I also discuss Aristotle’s philosophy of logic and related issues in the philosophy of logic. In “Aristotle on Logical Consequence,” under review,3 I argue in that Aristotle provides an account of logical consequence in terms of mereological principles such as the transitivity of containment, and compare this project to the contemporary model theoretic definition of logical consequence as truth preservation in all models. In recent scholarship, the syllogistic tends to be assimilated to one or other of two paradigms, a paradigmatic theory such as an axiomatic system, or a paradigmatic logic such as a natural deduction system. In “Is the Syllogistic a Logic?” under review,4 I argue that the syllogistic exhibits some of the features of a pardigmatic theory and some of the features of a paradigmatic logic. The research will be developed along two lines. I will develop an interpretation of Aristotle’s metaontology. Aristotle’s view that there are several distinct and irreducible kinds of ties of dependency among entities within distinct categories resembles Research Statement Phil Corkum, University of Alberta October 2011 contemporary ontological pluralism. Unlike pluralists such as McDaniels and Turner, Aristotle’s pluralism is not the claim that ‘there exists’ refers ambigously to various existential quantifiers with distinct domains. So Aristotle provides a framework for discussing ontology that rivals the currently dominant Quinean framework, under which questions of ontology concern quantifier domains. Schaffer (2009) draws on my (2008) to defend the characterization of this rival approach to ontology as ‘Aristotelian’.5 I will assess the historical accuracy of this characterization. Secondly, I will test the hypothesis that universals are identical with mereological sums of individuals. I will discuss the metaphysics of universals as mereological sums, argue for the ascription of the position to Aristotle, and compare the position to Aristotelian realism, class nominalism and other positions in the metaphysics of properties. If I am correct that the tie between individuals and universals is a proper part relation, then as an irreflexive and transitive relation, the tie is a strict partial order. And so the ties among individuals and universals impose considerable structure on the world. I will test the conjecture that this the work Aristotle intends for universals. Aristotle has little interest in the so-called problem of universals (to explain attribute agreement) or Lewis’ new work (joint-carving). Rather, he aims to reveal ontological structure. Such structure is the content of scientific understanding and is perspicuously represented by demonstrations in the Posterior Analytics. 1 I expand on Aristotle’s views on substance and ontological independence in an invited contribution to Ontological Dependence, Supervenience, and Response-Dependence, edd. Research Statement Phil Corkum, University of Alberta October 2011 Schnieder, Steinberg and Hoeltje, Basic Philosophical Concepts Series, Philosophia Verlag (Munich), forthcoming. I discuss a recent rival proposal in the commissioned “Critical Notice of Michail Peramatzis, Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2 Abstract. It is a commonplace today to distinguish predications and identity claims and existence claims. Under a standard interpretation, Aristotle conflates these three. I argue that predications for Aristotle are distinct from, but related to, both identity and existence claims. In “Aristotle on Predication,” I discuss predication and identity claims. Some ascribe to Aristotle the view that, if both subjects and predicates refer, then a sentence is true if the subject and predicate name one and the same thing. Since there is evidence that predicates refer, this view suggests that predications are for Aristotle identity claims. I will argue that we can ascribe to Aristotle the view that both subjects and predicates refer, while holding that he would deny that a sentence is true just in case the subject and predicate name one and the same thing. In particular, I will argue that Aristotle’s core semantic notion is not identity but the weaker relation of constitution: for example, the predication ‘All men are mortal’ expresses a true thought, in Aristotle’s view, just in case the mereological sum of humans is a part of the mereological sum of mortals. In “Existential Import in Aristotle,” I discuss predication and existence claims. True universal affirmations entail existence claims for Aristotle: the truth of ‘All men are mortal’ entails that there is at least one man. This surprising entailment and other unusual features of Aristotle’s semantics have led many to ascribe to Aristotle a unitary semantic notion underwriting both predications and existence claims. I will argue that the mereological interpretation of Aristotle’s semantics offered in this paper provides a pleasing explanation of these features without charging Aristotle with the conflation of predications and existence claims. 3 Abstract. Compare two conceptions of validity: under an example of a modal conception, an argument is valid just in case it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false; under an example of a topic-neutral conception, an argument is valid just in case there are no arguments of the same logical form with true premises and a false conclusion. This taxonomy of positions suggests a project in the philosophy of logic: the reductive analysis of the modal conception of logical consequence to the topic- neutral conception. Such a project would dispel the alleged obscurity of the notion of necessity employed in the modal conception in favour of the clarity of an account of logical consequence given in terms of tractable notions of logical form, universal generalization and truth simpliciter. In a series of publications, John Etchemendy has characterized the model-theoretic definition of logical consequence as truth preservation in all models as intended to provide just such an analysis. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle intends to provide an account of a modal conception of logical consequence in topic-neutral terms and so is engaged in a project comparable to the one described above. That Aristotle would be engaged in this sort of project is controversial. Under the Research Statement Phil Corkum, University of Alberta October 2011 standard reading of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle does not and cannot provide an account of logical consequence. Rather, he must take the validity of the first figure syllogisms (such as the syllogism known by its medieval mnemonic ‘Barbara’: A belongs to all B; B belongs to all C; so A belongs to all C) as obvious and not needing justification; he then establishes the validity of the other syllogisms by showing that they stand in a suitable relation to the first figure syllogisms. I will argue that Aristotle does attempt to provide an account of logical consequence—namely, by appeal to certain mereological theorems. For
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plurals and Mereology
    Journal of Philosophical Logic (2021) 50:415–445 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09570-9 Plurals and Mereology Salvatore Florio1 · David Nicolas2 Received: 2 August 2019 / Accepted: 5 August 2020 / Published online: 26 October 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract In linguistics, the dominant approach to the semantics of plurals appeals to mere- ology. However, this approach has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic. In the first part of the article, we offer a precise characterization of the mereological approach and the semantic background in which the debate can be meaningfully reconstructed. In the second part, we deal with the criticisms and assess their logical, linguistic, and philosophical significance. We identify four main objections and show how each can be addressed. Finally, we compare the strengths and shortcomings of the mereologi- cal approach and plural logic. Our conclusion is that the former remains a viable and well-motivated framework for the analysis of plurals. Keywords Mass nouns · Mereology · Model theory · Natural language semantics · Ontological commitment · Plural logic · Plurals · Russell’s paradox · Truth theory 1 Introduction A prominent tradition in linguistic semantics analyzes plurals by appealing to mere- ology (e.g. Link [40, 41], Landman [32, 34], Gillon [20], Moltmann [50], Krifka [30], Bale and Barner [2], Chierchia [12], Sutton and Filip [76], and Champollion [9]).1 1The historical roots of this tradition include Leonard and Goodman [38], Goodman and Quine [22], Massey [46], and Sharvy [74]. Salvatore Florio [email protected] David Nicolas [email protected] 1 Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom 2 Institut Jean Nicod, Departement´ d’etudes´ cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL University, Paris, France 416 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Mereology Total
    Simons, P., 1987. Part I is a standard The notion of structure is of central im- reference for extensional mereology. portance to mereology (for the following Parts II and III treat further topics and see also Koslicki 2008, ch. IX). Histori- question some assumptions of extension- cal contributions had this clearly in view; ality. Has an extensive bibliography. for example, as is brought out in Harte 2002, Plato in numerous dialogues grap- ples with the question of how a whole References and further readings which has many parts can nevertheless be a single unified object and ultimately Cartwright, R., 1975, “Scattered Ob- endorses a structure-based response to jects”, as reprinted in his Philosophical this question (see Plato). Wholes, ac- Essays, 1987, Cambridge, MIT Press: cording to Plato’s mature views (as de- 171-86. veloped primarily in the Sophist, Par- Lewis, D., 1991, Parts of Classes, Ox- menides, Philebus and Timaeus), have a ford: Blackwell. dichotomous nature, consisting of both material as well as structural compo- Sanford, D. H., 2003, “Fusion Confu- nents; it is the job of structure to unify sion”, Analysis 63: 1-4. and organize the plurality of material Sanford, D. H., 2011, “Can a sum change parts that are present in a unified whole. its parts?”, Analysis 71: 235-9. A similar conception is taken up and worked out further by Aristotle who Simons, P., 1987, Parts: A Study in On- famously believed that ordinary material tology, Oxford: Clarendon Press. objects, such as houses, are compounds Tarski, A., 1929, “Foundations of the of matter (viz., the bricks, wood, etc.) Geometry of Solids” as reprinted in his and form (viz., the arrangement exhibited Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, by the material components for the pur- Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959: pose of providing shelter).
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Logical Consequence for Nominalists
    THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia ISSN: 0495-4548 [email protected] Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea España ROSSBERG, Marcus; COHNITZ, Daniel Logical Consequence for Nominalists THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, vol. 24, núm. 2, 2009, pp. 147- 168 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Donostia-San Sebastián, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=339730809003 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Logical Consequence for Nominalists Marcus ROSSBERG and Daniel COHNITZ BIBLID [0495-4548 (2009) 24: 65; pp. 147-168] ABSTRACT: It has repeatedly been argued that nominalistic programmes in the philosophy of mathematics fail, since they will at some point or other involve the notion of logical consequence which is unavailable to the nominalist. In this paper we will argue that this is not the case. Using an idea of Nelson Goodman and W.V.Quine's which they developed in Goodman and Quine (1947) and supplementing it with means that should be nominalistically acceptable, we present a way to explicate logical consequence in a nominalistically acceptable way. Keywords: Philosophy of mathematics, nominalism, logical consequence, inferentialism, Nelson Goodman, W.V. Quine. 1. The Argument from Logical Consequence We do not have any strong convictions concerning the question of the existence or non- existence of abstract objects. We do, however, believe that ontological fastidiousness is prima facie a good attitude to adopt.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    i i OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi i i PART I Introduction i i i i i i OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi i i i i i i i i OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi i i Logical Consequence Its Nature, Structure, and Application Colin R. Caret and Ole T. Hjortland . Introduction Recent work in philosophical logic has taken interesting and unexpected turns. It has seen not only a proliferation of logical systems, but new applications of a wide range of different formal theories to philosophical questions. As a result, philosophers have been forced to revisit the nature and foundation of core logical concepts, chief amongst which is the concept of logical consequence. This volume collects together some of the most important recent scholarship in the area by drawing on a wealth of contributions that were made over the lifetime of the AHRC-funded Foundations of Logical Consequence project. In the following introductory essay we set these contributions in context and identify how they advance important debates within the philosophy of logic. Logical consequence is the relation that obtains between premises and conclu- sion(s) in a valid argument. Validity, most will agree, is a virtue of an argument, butwhatsortofvirtue?Orthodoxyhasitthatanargumentisvalidifitmustbethe case that when the premises are true, the conclusion is true. Alternatively, that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false simultaneously. In short, the argument is necessarily truth preserving. These platitudes, however, leave us with a number
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, the a Priori, and the Empirical
    Logic, the A Priori, and the Empirical William H. HANSON ABSTRACT: The time-honored view that logic is a non-empirical enterprise is still widely accepted, but it is not always recognized that there are (at least) two distinct ways in which this view can be made precise. One way fo- cuses on the knowledge we can have of logical matters, the other on the nature of the logical consequence relation itself. More specifically, the first way embodies the claim that knowledge of whether the logical consequence relation holds in a particular case is knowledge that can be had a priori (if at all). The second way presupposes a distinction between structural and non-structural properties and relations, and it holds that logical consequence is to be defined exclusively in terms of the former. It is shown that the two ways are not coextensive by giving an example of a logic that is non-empirical in the second way but not in the first. Keywords: logic, a priori, structure, logical consequence In “Logical Consequence and Logical Expressions” (2003) Mario Gómez-Torrente discusses many central issues in the philosophy of logic in an elegant, knowledgeable, and sensible manner. At the beginning of his paper Gómez-Torrente notes the impor- tance of form and modality for the notion of logical consequence, and he asserts that a necessary condition for the conclusion of an argument to follow from the premises is that it “follows by logical necessity from those premises”. He further asserts that this notion of following by logical necessity is “associated (in ways which are themselves unclear and vague) to unclear and vague notions like analytical implication, a priori implication and implication by necessity (tout court)”.
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of the Intuitive Notion of Logical Consequence
    1 In search of the intuitive notion of logical consequence Catarina Dutilh Novaes Faculty of Philosophy – Leiden University I. Introduction After decades of predominant focus on the notion of logical truth, the debate on the concept of logical consequence among philosophers and logicians was re-ignited by J. Etchemendy’s book The Concept of Logical Consequence (1990). His main tenet was that the model-theoretic notion of logical consequence did not capture adequately the corresponding intuitive notion. One of Etchemendy’s central claims was that the intuitive notion could be understood essentially from two different perspectives, one representational and one interpretational – and that the model-theoretic notion failed to match either. Some years ago, S. Shapiro (1998) sought to vindicate the model-theoretic notion of logical consequence; one of his arguments was that the dichotomy representational/interpretational notion of logical consequence was in a certain way infelicitous, since, according to him, a faithful rendering of the intuitive concept would have to have elements of both notions. Clearly, the resolution of issue as to whether the model-theoretic notion correctly captures the intuitive notion presupposes an at least minimally adequate characterization of this intuitive notion. Shapiro claimed that Etchemendy hadn’t really provided such a characterization1, and attempted to formulate one himself. He further claimed that, thus characterized, the intuitive notion was indeed correctly captured by the model-theoretic notion (albeit with some adjustements).2 In this paper, I do not discuss Shapiro’s defense of the model-theoretic notion; rather I examine his contention that the best rendering of the intuitive notion of logical consequence is what he called the ‘conglomeration’ notion, that is, the hybrid notion that combines both the representational and the interpretational view on consequence.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambiguity and the Representation Problem
    Ambiguity and the Representation Problem Paul Saka ([email protected]) Department of Philosophy, University of Houston 513 Agnes Arnold Hall, Houston, TX 77204 USA Abstract x is a bank ≡ x is a [certain kind of] financial institution or x is a bank ≡ x is a [certain kind of] slope. I canvass eight possible approaches to representing (2) NARROW-SCOPE DISJUNCTION ambiguity within truth-conditional semantics, and I x is a bank ≡ argue that all are unsatisfactory. For example, it would (x is a financial institution or x is a slope). be a mistake to hold that "x is a bank" is true iff x is a Disjunction (1) would be true even if "bank" univocally meant financial institution while "x is a bank" is true iff x is a slope, for then x would be a financial institution iff x is just 'financial institution', and it would be true even if "bank" a slope. It would also be a mistake to hold that some univocally meant 'slope'. Asserting (1) implicates that we as tokens of "x is a bank" are true iff x is a financial analysts don't know which meaning uniquely belongs to institution while other tokens are true iff x is a slope, "bank", which is different from saying that "bank" has two given the existence of punning and equivocation. My different meanings. Therefore wide-scope disjunction is not work may be taken either as a call for research on a the correct format for representing ambiguity. neglected topic in truth-conditional semantics, or as a The problem with (2) is that it does not really claim that the call for abandoning truth-conditional semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Elementary Mathematical Logic: Introduction and Outline
    ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICAL LOGIC: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE DAVID W. KUEKER 1. Introduction: What is Logic? Logic is traditionally defined as the study of reasoning. Mathematical Logic is, in particular, the study of reasoning as used in mathematics. Math- ematical reasoning is deductive — that is, it consists of drawing (correct) conclusions from given hypotheses. Thus the basic concept is that of a statement being a logical consequence of some other statements. In ordinary mathematical English the use of “therefore” customarily indicates that the following statement is a consequence of what comes before. For example: Every integer is either odd or even. 7 is not even. Therefore 7 is odd. We need to give a precise, mathematical, definition of logical consequence in order to study mathematical reasoning mathematically. To be a logical consequence the conclusion should not only be true (supposing the hypothe- ses to be true) but this should depend only on the “logical structure” of the statements — in this example, only on the meanings of “every”, “or” and “not”, but not on the meanings of “integer” “even”, “odd”, or “7”. For example, consider the following: Some integers are odd. Some integers are prime. Therefore some integers are both odd and prime. Although the conclusion is true this is not a valid example of a logical con- sequence since the conclusion fails, although the hypotheses hold, if “prime” is replaced by “even”. To capture this essential aspect of logical consequence we will work in formal languages in which the “non-logical” symbols do not have a fixed meaning. A formal language determines a collection of sentences of the language and also a class of interpretations for the language.
    [Show full text]
  • Ling 98A: the Meaning of Negation (Week 2)
    Ling 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 2) Yimei Xiang [email protected] 24 September 2013 1 Review 1.1 Negation in propositional logic • Truth table of negation; propositional logic • Some tautologies in propositional logic are not valid in natural languages 1.2 Oppositions • Contrary opposition vs. contradictory opposition • Defining oppositions with laws: – Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC): :(f ^ :f) – Law of Excluded Middle (LEM): f _:f • Three tricky issues: – Non-existent subjects – Scope ambiguity of negation – Metalinguistic negation • Categorical term-based logic of Aristotle – S(ubject)-P(redicate) form, a given P can be either affirmed or denied of a given S. – Two negations (neither of the following two is a propositional operator) ∗ Predicate denial: S is not (not-)P ∗ Term negation: S is not-P – When the given subject doesn’t exist, any affirmation about this subject is False and any denial is True. – Square of opposition ∗ Four corners: A, E, O, I ∗ Three types of oppositions: contradictories, contraries and subcontraries 1 Ling 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 2) 1.3 Presuppositions • Presuppositions – Presupposition triggers – Presuppositions vs. entailments/ implicatures – Presupposition projection ∗ Negation ∗ Conditionals ∗ Epistemic modals ∗ Interrogatives 2 Presuppositions (cont.) 2.1 Presupposition accommodation • A presupposition of a sentence must normally be part of the common ground of the utterance context (the shared knowledge of the interlocutors) in order for the sentence to be felicitous. This process of an addressee assuming that a presupposition is true (even in the absence of explicit information that it is), is called presupposition accommodation. • If the presupposition is not properly accommodated (namely, the truth of the presupposition is not satisfied in the CG), then we say there is a presupposition failure.
    [Show full text]
  • Elementary Mathematical Logic: Introduction and Outline
    ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICAL LOGIC: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE DAVID W. KUEKER 1. Introduction: What is Logic? Mathematical Logic is, at least in its origins, the study of reasoning as used in mathematics. Mathematical reasoning is deductive — that is, it consists of drawing (correct) conclusions from given hypotheses. Thus the basic concept is that of a statement being a logical consequence of some other statements. In ordinary mathematical English the use of “therefore” customarily indicates that the following statement is a consequence of what comes before. For example: Every integer is either odd or even. 7 is not even. Therefore 7 is odd. To be a logical consequence the conclusion should not only be true (sup- posing the hypotheses to be true) but this should depend only on the “logical structure” of the statements — in this example, only on the meanings of “ev- ery”, “or” and “not”, but not on the meanings of “integer” “even”, “odd”, or “7”. For example, consider the following: Some integers are odd. Some integers are prime. Therefore some integers are both odd and prime. Although the conclusion is true this is not a valid example of a logical con- sequence since the conclusion fails, although the hypotheses hold, if “prime” is replaced by “even”. To capture this aspect of logical consequence we will work in formal lan- guages in which the “non-logical” symbols do not have a fixed meaning. A formal language determines a collection of sentences amd also a class of interpretations for the language. Each sentence of the formal langauge is ei- ther true or false in each interpretation, and we will define a sentence to be a logical consequence of a set of hypotheses if it is true in every interpretation which makes all of the hypotheses true.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY of LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE 1. Introduction
    HISTORY OF LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE CONRAD ASMUS AND GREG RESTALL 1. Introduction Consequence is a, if not the, core subject matter of logic. Aristotle's study of the syllogism instigated the task of categorising arguments into the logically good and the logically bad; the task remains an essential element of the study of logic. In a logically good argument, the conclusion follows validly from the premises; thus, the study of consequence and the study of validity are the same. In what follows, we will engage with a variety of approaches to consequence. The following neutral framework will enhance the discussion of this wide range of approaches. Consequences are conclusions of valid arguments. Arguments have two parts: a conclusion and a collection of premises. The conclusion and the premises are all entities of the same sort. We will call the conclusion and premises of an argument the argument's components and will refer to anything that can be an argument component as a proposition. The class of propositions is defined func- tionally (they are the entities which play the functional role of argument compo- nents); thus, the label should be interpreted as metaphysically neutral. Given the platonistic baggage often associated with the label \proposition", this may seem a strange choice but the label is already used for the argument components of many of the approaches below (discussions of Aristotlean and Medieval logic are two ex- amples). A consequence relation is a relation between collections of premises and conclusions; a collection of premises is related to a conclusion if and only if the latter is a consequence of the former.
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Thought: No Syntax Without Semantics*
    Mind & Language ISSN 0268-1064 Vol. 5 No. 3 Autumn 1990 0Basil Blackwell Article The Language of Thought: No Syntax Without Semantics* TIM CRANE Many philosophers think that being in an intentional state is a matter of being related to a sentence in a mental language-a 'Language of Thought' (see especially Fodor 1975, 1987 Appendix; Field 1978). According to this view-which I shall call 'the LT hypothesis'-when anyone has a belief or a desire or a hope with a certain content, they have a sentence of this language, with that content, 'written' in their heads. The claim is meant quite literally: the mental representations that make up the items of this language have semantic and syntactic properties. This is why, according to this view, cognitive psychology does, and should, treat that part of the mind which deals with intentional states as a semantic and a syntactic 'engine'. Stephen Stich 1983 has argued at length that although there are good reasons for thinking of the mind as a syntactic engine, cognitive psy- chology should abandon the idea of a semantic engine. In particular, he argues that the 'folk' psychological notion of the semantic content of an intentional state should have no place in a mature science of the mind. He does think that there is a language of thought, but it is a purely syntactic language, a language without semantics. In this paper I will explain why he is wrong. Patricia and Paul Churchland have also attacked the scientific credentials of folk psychology (see P.M. Churchland 1981; P.S.
    [Show full text]