DOCSLIB.ORG

Linguistic Modal Conventionalism in the Real World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Linguistic Modal Conventionalism in the Real World Linguistic Modal Conventionalism in the Real World Clare Due A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University March 2018 © Clare Due 2018 Statement This thesis is solely the work of its author. No part of it has previously been submitted for any degree, or is currently being submitted for any other degree. To the best of my knowledge, any help received in preparing this thesis, and all sources used, have been duly acknowledged. Word count: 88164 Clare Due 7th March 2018 Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to Daniel Nolan for the years of support he has given me while writing this thesis. His supervision has always been challenging yet encouraging, and I have benefited greatly from his insight and depth of knowledge. His kindness and empathy also played a large role in making a difficult process much easier. My second supervisor, Alan Hájek, agreed to take me on late in my program, and has been enormously generous with his time and help since. The community of philosophers at the Australian National University provides the perfect combination of intellectual development, friendship and personal support. I consider myself very privileged to have had the opportunity to be part of that community. My research has benefited from feedback both written and verbal from many ANU philosophers, including Daniel Stoljar, Frank Jackson, Jessica Isserow, Edward Elliott, Don Nordblom, Heather Browning and Erick Llamas. I would like to offer particular thanks to Alexander Sandgren. I learned an enormous amount during the first years of my program, and a great deal of it was in conversation with Alex. He has also read and offered advice on numerous chapter drafts. Dana Goswick inspired my interest in the topic of this thesis as an honours student, and more recently, she and other attendees of the Melbourne metaphysics reading group have offered helpful insights into questions related to my work. I am also grateful for the government funding that allowed me to pursue this research. Tackling the project of a PhD thesis was made much less daunting by having had two sisters take on the task before me. Clemmi and Cec, your solidarity and wisdom has always been invaluable. The same applies to Anna Booth and Cathleen Rosier; the understanding and opportunities for commiseration provided by having graduate student friends has made the PhD life feel much less lonely than it otherwise might have. I am immensely grateful to my Mum, who offers me endless love, care and interesting conversation, and to my Dad, who has always enthusiastically encouraged me to take on projects such as this one. Finally, I would like to thank Tyson Peppler, who has been my greatest supporter and closest friend. Abstract This thesis examines the prospects for a theory of metaphysical modality according to which modal truth is determined by conventional rules governing the terms in a natural language. I label this theory ‘linguistic modal conventionalism’, or ‘LMC’. My focus is on articulating and responding to a specific objection to LMC: the objection that conventionalism about the modal features of objects and propositions leads to conventionalism about ordinary objects and non-modal truth. The first part of the thesis sets out the theoretical background for LMC by describing its empiricist and naturalistic motivations, its historical background, and its modern variants. I argue that modern versions of LMC are able to respond to the Quinean and Kripean challenges that faced the theory’s positivist predecessors. The middle part of the thesis is devoted to describing the threat of object and truth conventionalism. I argue that the tight connection between an object’s conditions of existence and its modal properties means that conventionalism about modal properties leads to conventionalism about objects themselves. Similarly, the modal nature of a proposition’s truth conditions means that conventionalism about modal features of propositions leads to conventionalism about non-modal truth. The final chapters of the thesis present a way for LMC to respond to these threats. I argue that the theory should do away with the problematic ontology by rejecting modal features of objects and propositions, and providing truth conditions for modal sentences in terms of linguistic rules directly. After describing the metaphysics and semantics of this position, I conclude by responding to a number of potential objections for LMC, and by arguing that it satisfies the empiricist and naturalist desiderata by which it is motivated. Contents Introduction: Linguistic modal conventionalism: threats and promises............................. 1 I. Modality: the target of analysis....................................................................................... 4 II. Epistemological motivations.......................................................................................... 5 III. Metaphysical motivations............................................................................................. 9 IV. From motivations to desiderata.................................................................................. 12 V. A map of the thesis...................................................................................................... 13 1. The rise and fall of linguistic modal conventionalism.................................................. 15 1.1 Logical positivism and early linguistic theories of modality.............................. 15 1.2 A. J. Ayer............................................................................................................ 20 1.3 Rudolf Carnap..................................................................................................... 22 1.4 W. V. Quine......................................................................................................... 26 1.5 Saul Kripke.......................................................................................................... 29 1.6 Hilary Putnam...................................................................................................... 33 1.7 Conclusion: desiderata revisited.......................................................................... 36 2. Modern linguistic modal conventionalism and the necessary a posteriori.................. 39 2.1 Sidelle’s modal conventionalism........................................................................ 39 2.2 Thomasson’s modal normativism....................................................................... 47 2.2.1 Linguistic rules and why we should believe in them............................... 47 2.2.2 Using linguistic rules to construct a theory of modality.......................... 51 2.3 Defending analyticity.......................................................................................... 55 2.4 Establishing parameters for LMC........................................................................ 58 2.4.1 Theodore Sider......................................................................................... 59 2.4.2 Ross Cameron.......................................................................................... 59 2.4.3 Iris Einheuser........................................................................................... 60 2.4.4 Dana Goswick.......................................................................................... 61 2.4.5 Simon Blackburn...................................................................................... 61 2.4.6 Conditions for LMC................................................................................. 62 2.4.7 Two notes: sentences and conventions.................................................... 63 2.5 Taking stock........................................................................................................ 65 3. Lost in a conventional world........................................................................................ 66 3.1 Modal properties and de re modal truth.............................................................. 66 3.2 Modal properties and conditions of existence, identity and persistence............. 69 3.3 Conventional modal properties and Leibniz’s Law............................................. 72 3.4 Is object conventionalism so bad?....................................................................... 76 3.5 Abelardian predicates.......................................................................................... 81 3.6 Heading deeper into the conventional maze........................................................ 84 4. Thomasson, Schiffer and a dilemma for linguistic modal conventionalism................. 85 4.1 Thomasson: the threat of object conventionalism............................................... 85 4.2 Thomasson on avoiding object conventionalism................................................. 88 4.3 A dilemma: conventional objects or real modality............................................. 93 4.3.1 The status of modal propositions............................................................. 93 4.3.2 The status of modal properties................................................................. 96 4.4 Easy ontology and pleonastic properties............................................................. 98 4.5 The cost of conventionalism.............................................................................. 104 5. In a conventional world, we decide what’s true......................................................... 105 5.1 Analyticity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter Three Classifying, Identifying, and the Function of Substance Concepts §3.1 Orientation Substances, As I Have Described
    Chapter Three Classifying, identifying, and the function of substance concepts §3.1 Orientation Substances, as I have described them, are whatever one can learn from given only one or a few encounters, various skills or information that will apply on other encounters. Further, this possibility must be grounded in some kind of natural necessity. The function of a substance concept is to make possible this sort of learning and use of knowledge for a specific substance. For this, the cognizing organism must be able to recognize the specific substance under a variety of different conditions, as many as possible. It needs to do this, first, to grasp that the substance it is learning about over various encounters is one and the same so that knowledge of it can accumulate and, second, so that the accumulated knowledge can be applied. For substance concepts to be employed in the service of theoretical knowing —employed for knowing that rather than knowing how— the substance must be represented in thought in a univocal way, the same substance always represented as being the same. This makes possible a stable, unequivocal and nonredundant inner representational system. The ability to recognize what is objectively the same substance again as the same despite wide variations in the faces it shows to the senses is necessarily fallible. Although you surely have many ways of identifying each member of your immediate family —similarly for water and for cats— there will always be possible conditions under which you would misidentify them, mistaking them for someone or something else. If a concept is genuinely a substance concept, if its extension is really a substance, this extension is not determined by one's fallible dispositions to recognize it.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Reference 9/26/11
    24.251#5 Yablo Direct Reference 9/26/11 Epistemically necessary = knowable a priori. Metaphysically necessary = true in every possible world. They come apart! 'This animal is a dog' is metaphysically necessary but epistemically contingent. 'Jack the Ripper, if he exists, is a murderer' is epistemically necessary but metaphysically contingent. Kripke's Objections to Russell's Name Claim. ('n' means 'the F'). If 'n' means 'the F', then (*) 'a thing is n iff it is the F' should be (i) metaphysically necessary, (ii) a priori. 1. (*) is not necessary left to right; F is not metaphysically necessary for being n 'It could have happened that Twain was an illiterate tramp.' True. 'It could have happened that the author of such and such books was an illiterate tramp.' False. 2. (*) is not necessary right to left; F is not metaphysically sufficient for being n 'Necessarily Bertrand Russell descended from Lord John Russell.' True. 'Necessarily the most famous 20th Century British philosopher descended from Lord Russell.' False. 3. (*) is not a priori left to right; F is not epistemically necessary for being n Say 'Gödel' means the man who proved that arithmetic is incomplete 'Gödel was a mathematician' should be a priori. And it's not; we can imagine discovering he was an impostor. 4. (*) is not a priori right to left; F is not epistemically sufficient for being n Suppose it turns out that the man known as Gödel in fact stole the proof from Schmidt. Does that mean 'Gödel' really refers to Schmidt? Replies (?). To 1. The description gets wide scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Externalism Is a View About the Conditions for Our Thoughts and Words to Refer to Things
    Semantic Internalism and Externalism in the Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language, ed. by Barry C. Smith and Ernest Lepore. Oxford University Press 2006. pp. 323-40. Katalin Farkas Central European University, Budapest 1. Three claims about meaning In a sense, the meaning of our words obviously depends on circumstances outside us. ‘Elm’ in English is used to talk about elms, and though I could decide – perhaps as a kind of code – to use the word ‘elm’ to talk about beeches, my decision would hardly change the English language. The meaning of ‘elm’ depends on conventions of the language speaking community, and these are certainly beyond my control. In this sense, no-one will disagree that meaning is determined by factors outside the individual. At the same time, it seems that it is up to me what I mean by my words; and in fact, the meaning of a word in the language is simply a result of what most of us mean by it. Another way of putting this point is that even if the meaning of an expression is determined by social agreement, grasping the meaning of the word is an individual psychological act. I may grasp the usual public meaning correctly, or I may – willingly or accidentally – mean something different by the word, but it looks that meaning in this sense depends entirely on me. It is also plausible to assume that in some sense, our physical environment contributes to what our words mean. If I am right in assuming that before Europeans arrived to Australia, English had had no word which meant the same as the word ‘kangaroo‘ does nowadays, this is easily explained by the fact that people at that time hadn’t encountered kangaroos.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Methodology for Ontology Based Model Engineering
    Towards a methodology for ontology based model engineering Nicola Guarino and Christopher Welty† LADSEB/CNR Padova, Italy {guarino,welty}@ladseb.pd.cnr.it http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/ontology.html Phone: +39 049 829 57 51 Fax: +39 049 829 57 63 † on sabbatical from Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY Abstract The Formal Tools of Ontological Analysis The philosophical discipline of Ontology is evolving towards an engineering discipline, and in this evolution the Our methodology is based on four fundamental ontologi- need for a principled methodology has clearly arisen. In cal notions, which will be discussed in this section: identity, this paper, we briefly discuss our recent work towards devel- unity, rigidity, and dependence. We shall represent the oping a methodology for ontology-based model engineering. behavior of a property with respect to these notions by This methodology builds on previous methodology efforts, means of a set of meta-properties. Our goal is to show how and is founded on important analytic notions that have been these meta-properties impose some constraints on the way drawn from Philosophy and adapted to Engineering: identity, subsumption is used to model a domain. unity, rigidity, and dependence. We demonstrate how these techniques can be used to analyze properties, which clarifies many misconceptions about taxonomies and helps bring substantial order to ontologies. Preliminaries Let’s assume we have a first-order language L0 (the model- Introduction ing language) whose intended domain is the world to be modeled, and another first order language (the meta-lan- Ontologies are becoming increasingly popular in prac- L1 tice, and the number of poor quality ontologies have made guage) whose constant symbols are the predicates of L0.
    [Show full text]
  • Out of Sorts? Remedies for Theories of Object
    Out of Sorts? Some Remedies for Theories of Object Concepts: A Reply to Rhemtulla and Xu Sergey V. Blok University of Texas at Austin George E. Newman Yale University Lance J. Rips Northwestern University Psychological Review, in press. Out of Sorts? / 2 Abstract Concepts of individual objects (e.g., a favorite chair or pet) include knowledge that allows people to identify these objects, sometimes after long stretches of time. In an earlier article, we set out experimental findings and mathematical modeling to support the view that judgments of identity depend on people’s beliefs about the causal connections that unite an object’s earlier and later stages. In this article, we examine Rhemtulla and Xu’s (in press) critique of the causal theory. We argue that Rhemtulla and Xu’s alternative sortal proposal is not a necessary part of identity judgments, is internally inconsistent, leads to conflicts with current theories of categories, and encounters problems explaining empirical dissociations. Previous evidence also suggests that causal factors dominate spatiotemporal continuity and perceptual similarity in direct tests. We conclude that the causal theory provides the only existing account consistent with current evidence. Keywords: Concepts Causation Sortals Object concepts Out of Sorts? / 3 Out of Sorts? Some Remedies for Theories of Object Concepts: A Reply to Rhemtulla and Xu Many objects persist over stretches of time too long for us to track perceptually. If you attend your thirtieth high school reunion, you’re bound to run into classmates like Fred Lugbagg whom you haven’t encountered since graduation and whose perceptual appearance is no more similar to the 18-year- old Lugbagg than is the appearance of most of the other males at the reunion.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Reference 1. the Phenomenon Of
    1 Reference 1. The phenomenon of reference In a paper evaluating animal communication systems, Hockett and Altmann (1968) presented a list of what they found to be the distinctive characteristics which, collectively, define what it is to be a human language. Among the characteristics is the phenomenon of "aboutness", that is, in using a human language we talk about things that are external to ourselves. This not only includes things that we find in our immediate environment, but also things that are displaced in time and space. For example, at this moment I can just as easily talk about Tahiti or the planet Pluto, neither of which are in my immediate environment nor ever have been, as I can about this telephone before me or the computer I am using at this moment. Temporal displacement is similar: it would seem I can as easily talk about Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar, neither a contemporary of mine, as I can of former president Bill Clinton, or my good friend John, who are contemporaries of mine. This notion of aboutness is, intuitively, lacking in some contrasting instances. For example, it is easy to think that animal communication systems lack this characteristic—that the mating call of the male cardinal may be caused by a certain biological urge, and may serve as a signal that attracts mates, but the call itself is (putatively) not about either of those things. Or, consider an example from human behavior. I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive in a nail. I say, "Ouch!" In so doing I am saying this because of the pain, and I am communicating to anyone within earshot that I am in pain, but the word ouch itself is not about the pain I feel.
    [Show full text]
  • Islamic Philosophy (PHIL 10197) Course Organiser: Fedor Benevich
    Islamic Philosophy (PHIL 10197) Course Organiser: Fedor Benevich Email: [email protected] Office Hours: Thursday 10-12am, signup via doodle at least 8hrs in advance. Course Secretary: Ann-Marie Cowe Email: [email protected] Course Description: This course will provide a systematic introduction to key issues and debates in Islamic philosophy by focusing on the medieval period and showing its relevance for contemporary philosophical discussions. It will explore the mechanisms of the critical appropriation of the Western (Greek) philosophical heritage in the Islamic intellectual tradition and the relationship between philosophy and religion in Islam. Islamic philosophy is the missing link between ancient Greek thought and the European (medieval and early modern) philosophical tradition. It offers independent solutions to many philosophical problems which remain crucial for contemporary readers. Starting with a historical overview of the most important figures and schools, this course covers central topics of Islamic philosophy, such as (the selection of topics may vary from year to year): - faith and reason - philosophy and political authority - free will and determinism (incl. the problem of evil) - scientific knowledge and empiricism - materialism (atomism) and sortal essentialism - self-awareness, personal identity, and the immateriality of soul - proofs for God's existence Primary sources will be read in English translation. Learning Outcomes: On completion of this course, the student will be able to: 1. Demonstrate knowledge of the central issues of Islamic philosophy 2. Analyse materials independently and critically engage with other interpretations 3. Provide systematic exposition and argumentation for their views 4. Demonstrate understanding of a non-Western intellectual tradition Topics and Readings: Week 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Just What Is the Relation Between the Manifest and the Scientific Images? Comments on Brandom
    Just What is the Relation between the Manifest and the Scientific Images? Comments on Brandom I. Introduction The last half of the (long) first chapter of Brandom’s From Empiricism to Expressivism constitutes an extended argument against one half of Wilfrid Sellars’s version of scientific realism. I say ‘half’ of Sellarsian scientific realism because Brandom agrees with Sellars’s anti-instrumentalism. The half Brandom takes issue with is Sellars’s claim that the “scientific image” [SI] —an idealized, complete scientific framework for the description and explanation of all natural events and objects—possesses such ontological priority over the “manifest image” [MI]—itself an idealization of the ‘commonsense’ framework of persons and things in terms of which we currently experience ourselves and the world—that it will come to replace the MI in all matters of explanation and description. Brandom’s argument against this Sellarsian idea is rather roundabout. First, he traces Sellars’s distinction between the MI and the SI back to the Kantian distinction between phenomena and noumena. Then he argues against several attempts to understand identity claims across disparate frameworks. Neither, claims Brandom, will permit us to identify objects across the MI/SI divide. But if we cannot identify the objects of concern across the frameworks, then a shift from the MI to the SI is not a form of replacement of one framework by a better, but simply a change of subject that poses no threat to the MI. The overall argument of the chapter is that, though what Sellars made of the Kantian notion of a category is a very Good Idea, Sellars’s assimilation of scientific realism to a kind of transcendental realism in Kant’s sense, is a Bad Idea with a muddled basis and unworkable consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • P(X)]( Y Exists(Y)]) = 9X Snow(X)
    Existential sentences without existential quanti cation Louise McNally Universitat Pomp eu Fabra 1. Intro duction 1 In a chapter on existence statements in Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, Strawson makes the following observation: we can...admit the p ossibility of another formulation of existentially quanti ed statement[s], and, with it, the p ossibility of another use of the word `exists'....We can, that is to say, reconstrue every such quanti ed prop osition as a sub ject-predicate prop osition in whichthe sub ject is a prop erty or concept and in which the predicate declares, or denies, its instantiation. (Strawson 1959:241) In other words, there are twoways to express a prop osition whose truth entails the existence of some token entity (or particular, to use Strawson's terminology). Supp ose we take the following there-existential sentence as an example: (1) There was snow. We might, mo difying slightly the analysis in Barwise and Co op er 1981, inter- pret There was as an existence predicate and snow as an existential quanti er over particulars (represented logically in (2)): (2) P [9x[snow(x) ^ P (x)](y [exists(y )]) = 9x[snow(x) ^ exists(x)] Alternatively,we might (essentially equivalently) interpret Therewasas if it were synonymous with the predicate to be instantiated, a predicate that holds of expressions interpreted as prop erties or as what Strawson calls nonparticulars, e.g. as in (3)a. Presumably,itwould b e true that the snow-prop erty is instantiated i some particular, one that is a quantity of snow, exists (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Formalizing Ontological Commitments
    From: AAAI-94 Proceedings. Copyright © 1994, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. Formalizing Ontological Commitments Nicola Guarino Massimiliano Carrara Pierdaniele Giaretta LADSEB-CNR, National Research Council, Viale Ungheria, 43a Institute of History of Philosophy, Corso Stati Uniti, 4 I-37046 Minerbe (VR) University of Padova, I-35127 Padova, Italy Italy Piazza Capitaniato, 3 [email protected] I-35100 Padova, Italy Abstract purposes, since we want to include in the commitment Formalizing the ontological commitment of a logical lan- some basic assumptions and distinctions presupposed by guage means offering a way to specify the intended meaning the theory. of its vocabulary by constraining the set of its models, giv- In the AI community, the above position is at the basis ing explicit information about the intended nature of the of current projects for knowledge sharing and reuse modelling primitives and their a priori relationships. We (Neches et al. 1991). In the knowledge acquisition litera- present here a formal definition of ontological commitment ture, the notion of ontological commitment has been intro- which aims to capture the very basic ontological assump- duced by Gruber (1993-1994) as an agreement to use a tions about the intended domain, related to issues such as sli,ared vocabukary specification: such a specification is a identity and internal structure. To tackle such issues, a set of terminological ‘axioms, <and ontological commitment modal framework endowed with mereo-topological primi- amounts to syntactical consistency with such axioms. This tives has been adopted. The paper is mostly based on a re- syntactical notion does not fit our intuitions, since it seems visitation of philosophical (and linguistic) literature in the natural to allow two different vocabularies (using English perspective of knowledge representation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Resemblance Structure of Natural Kinds
    The Resemblance Structure of Natural Kinds A Formal Model for Resemblance Nominalism Javier Belastegui Lazcano Supervisors: Dr. Thomas Mormann Dr. Jon P´erezLaraudogoitia A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of the Basque Country November 2020 (cc)2021 JAVIER BELASTEGUI LAZCANO(cc by-nc-sa 4.0) Declaration of Authorship I hereby declare that this dissertation, entitled \The Resemblance Structure of Natural Kinds: A Formal Model for Resemblance Nominalism" and written under the supervision of Thomas Mormann and Jon P´erezLaraudogoitia, is the result of my own original research. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where it is explicitly acknowledged in the text. No part of this thesis has been submitted for a degree at any other university or institution. Javier Belastegui Lazcano 1 Para Ane, que se sabe todas mis canciones. Abstract The aim of this thesis is to better understand the ways natural kinds are re- lated to each other by species-genus relations and the ways in which the members of the kind are related to each other by resemblance relations, by making use of formal models of kinds. This is done by first analysing a Minimal Conception of Natural Kinds and then reconstructing it from the ontological assumptions of Resemblance Nominalism. The questions addressed are: 1. What is the external structure of kinds? In what ways are kinds related to each other by species-genus relations? 2. What is the internal structure of kinds? In what sense are the instances of a kind similar enough to each other? According to the Minimal Conception of Natural Kinds, kinds have two components, a set of members of the kind (the extension) and a set of natural attributes common to these objects (the intension).
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Proper Names: Direct Reference and the Causal–Historical Theory
    4 Proper names: Direct Reference and the Causal–Historical Theory Overview In a further argument against description theories of proper names, Kripke appealed to the notion of a “possible world” or universe alternative to our own. A definite description of Russell’s sort changes its referent from world to world; although “the world’s fastest woman in 1998” actually refers to Marion Jones, it designates different individuals in other worlds, since Jones might have been slower (or not even have existed) and other women might have been better runners. But typically, a proper name such as “Marion Jones” refers to the very same individual in every world in which that individual exists. Some theorists claim that names are directly referential, in that a name contributes nothing but its bearer or referent to the meaning of a sentence in which it occurs. In light of Kripke’s arguments against description theories, this view is highly plausible. But the four puzzles return to haunt it. So we are left with something of a paradox. A separate question is, in virtue of what does a proper name designate its bearer? Kripke offered a causal–historical picture of referring, according to which a given use of “Marion Jones” refers to Marion Jones in virtue of a causal chain that grounds that utterance event in the ceremony in which Jones was first given the name. But, in light of some examples that clearly do not fit that model, considerable refinement is needed to work up that picture into an adequate theory of referring. Kripke, and Hilary Putnam, extended the causal–historical view to cover natural-kind terms, like “water,” “gold,” and “tiger,” as well as proper names.
    [Show full text]