0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

140 visualizzazioni6 pagineMay 23, 2011

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

140 visualizzazioni

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Deduction
- Mind - The Big View
- Freedom and Necessity Philo 1
- dd
- How to Ask a Smart Question
- Bell, Philosophy of Mathematics
- Categories and Logical Forms in Kant
- Cantu. Bolzano & Kant Paper
- Hobart - Texte Est Un Con
- The logical structure of the naya method of the Jainas* - Part 9
- The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method LF Ed. [1962]
- McGinn
- A. Vanzo - Kant on nominal definition k-s KANT 2010
- 5 Propositions, Dispositions and Logical Knolwedge
- Quine & Carnap - Dear Carnap, Dear Van.. the Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related Work
- _G11_G12_G23_textivity_2_2011_12
- Assignment Direction Words
- Vivarium - Vol Xli, No 1, 2003
- standard 3 artefact
- 8

Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

Quine on truth by convention

March 8, 2005

1 Linguistic explanations of necessity and the a priori |
1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2 Relative and absolute truth by deﬁnition |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||

3 Is logic true by convention? |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
3 |

1 Linguistic explanations of necessity and the a priori

Recall that Ayer, in Language, Truth, & Logic, attempted to give linguistic expla- nations of necessity and a prioricity. Claims which are necessary, or a priori, are necessary or a priori because they are analytic. We saw that this idea promised to re- solve two puzzles, one having to do with necessity, and the other having to do with a prioricity. (Ayer does not always distinguish between necessity and the a priori, but, as discussed earlier, the two are at least conceptually distinct — even if, like Ayer, you think that they are coextensive.) These puzzles can, respectively, be presented as follows:

Puzzle about necessity. Facts are a matter of objects having certain prop- erties, or standing in certain relations to other objects. But what could be the diﬀerence between an object having a property, and having the property necessarily? Thinking that there is some genuine diﬀerence here seems to involve believing in some sort of mysterious metaphysical glue which holds some objects and properties more tightly together than oth- ers. But surely there is no such thing. So, there can be no such thing as the distinction between facts which obtain necessarily and those which obtain contingently.

Puzzle about a priori knowledge. Standardly, we know the truth of some claim by getting information relevant to that claim through our senses. But cases of a priori knowledge are precisely cases in which our justiﬁ- cation is not reliant evidence provided by our senses. However, in such cases there must be some explanation of our ability to have the relevant bit of knowledge. In such cases, we must have some kind of non-sensory access to the truth of the relevant claim. But surely there is no such kind of non-sensory rational intuition. So, there can be no such thing as the

1

distinction between claims which are knowable a priori and those which are knowable only a posteriori.

As we saw in our discussion of Ayer, his view of the sources of necessity and the a priori is an attempt to demystify these notions. His idea was to say that necessity and the a priori are to be explained in terms of analyticity; and analytic sentences are just true by deﬁnition, or by convention. He put his idea like this:

a proposition is analytic when its validity depends solely on the def- initions of the symbols it contains, and synthetic when its validity is de-

If one knows what is the function

termined by the facts of

of the words ‘either’, ‘or’, ‘not’, then one can see that any proposition of the form ‘Either p is true or p is not true’ is valid.” (79)

Roughly, we can put his solution to the two above puzzles as follows: (i) To explain why a sentence can express a necessary truth, we do not need to posit any special metaphysical glue holding certain objects and properties together. Rather, we can just note that certain sentences are just trivially, or deﬁnitionally true, and that these sentences, because we never permit them to have exceptions, are the necessary ones. (ii) To explain how we can know a certain claim a priori, we do not have to rely on mysterious claims about rational intuition. Instead, we can just note that understanding a word involves knowing its deﬁnition; and for some sentences — the ones which are analytic, or true by deﬁnition — knowing the deﬁnitions of the words in the sentence is enough to know that the sentence expresses a truth. Broadly speaking, linguistic rules take the place of metaphysical glue, and knowledge of those rules takes the place of rational intuition.

One of the puzzling aspects of Ayer’s discussion is that although he seems to lay great weight on the notion of truth in virtue of deﬁnitions and knowability in virtue of knowledge of deﬁnitions, he says very little about what deﬁnitions are. Quine’s article “Truth by Convention” is an attack on the explanation of a prioricity in terms of analyticity which takes as its starting point the nature of deﬁnition. Quine thinks that, once we are more clear on what ‘truth by deﬁnition’ or ‘truth by convention’ might mean, we will see that explanations of necessity and a priori in terms of lan- guage are incoherent:

developments of the last few decades have led to a widespread con- viction that logic and mathematics are purely analytic or conventional. It is less the purpose of the present inquiry to question the validity of this contrast than to question its sense.” (250)

2 Relative and absolute truth by deﬁnition

Quine begins by explaining one clear sense in which a sentence may be true by deﬁnition:

2

“A deﬁnition, strictly, is a convention of notational Functionally a deﬁnition is not a premise to a theory, but a license for rewriting theory by putting deﬁniens for deﬁniendum or vice versa. By allowing such replacements deﬁnition transmits truth: it allows true state- ments to be translated into new statements which are true by the same token.” (250)

This shows us one way to deﬁne truth by deﬁnition in a relative sense. One sentence

S |
can be true by deﬁnition relative to another sentence S∗ if (i) S∗ is true and (ii) |

S |
can be obtained from S∗ by putting deﬁniens for deﬁniendum or vice versa. As |

Quine suggests, perhaps we could view truths of mathematics as true by deﬁnition relative to truths of logic. This would give us an explanation of both the necessity of mathematical truths and the fact that such truths can be known a priori given the fact that logical truths are necessary and knowable a priori.

But this raises an immediate problem. Ayer and the other positivists claimed, on the basis of their empiricism, that all a priori truths and necessary truths may be explained on the basis of their analyticity. But this means that if analyticity is truth by deﬁnition, we’ll have to come up with some non-relative sense of ‘truth by deﬁnition.’ This is the problem that Quine has in mind at the end of §I when he writes,

“If for the moment we grant that all mathematics is thus deﬁnitionally constructible from logic, then mathematics becomes true by convention in

a relative sense: mathematical truths become conventional transcriptions of logical truths. Perhaps this is all that many of us mean to assert when

we assert that mathematics is true by convention

cannot regard mathematics as true purely by convention unless all those logical principles to which mathematics is supposed to reduce are like- wise true by convention. And the doctrine that mathematics is analytic accomplishes a less fundamental simpliﬁcation for philosophy than would at ﬁrst appear, if it asserts only that mathematics is a conventional tran- scription of logic and not that logic is convention in turn: for if in the end we are to countenance any a priori principles at all which are independent of convention, we should not scruple to admit a few more

But in strictness we

But if we are to construe logic also as true by convention, we must rest logic ultimately upon some manner of convention other than deﬁnition:

for it was noted earlier that deﬁnitions are available only for transforming truths, not for founding them.” (258-9)

The question, then, is if we can make sense of the idea that logic is true by convention in some non-relative sense which would explain its status as necessary and a priori.

3 Is logic true by convention?

In §II of ‘Truth by Convention’, Quine tries to do just this.

3

We arrived at deﬁnitional truths by giving the meaning of one expression in terms of another expression. This course will not be available for giving an account of the meanings of logical expressions, since these are supposed to be true by convention in an absolute rather than a relative sense. In order to make sense of the idea that logical truths are true by deﬁnition, we will have to explain the sense in which logical constants can be deﬁned:

“Now suppose in particular that we abstract from the existing usage of our logical primitives, so that for the time being these become mean-

ingless marks, and the statements containing them lose their status as statements and become likewise meaningless, neither true nor false; and

suppose we run through all of those erstwhile statements

various of them arbitrarily as true. To whatever extent we carry this pro- cess, we to that extent determine meaning for the initially meaningless marks ‘if’, ‘then’, ‘¬’, and the rest. Such contexts as we render true are true by convention.” (260)

segregating

Quine’s idea is that we can make sense of this absolute sense of truth by convention or deﬁnition if we can imagine logical expressions being given their meaning, not by deﬁnition, but by stipulations of the following kind:

Let ‘x’ have whatever meaning is required to make sentences of the form ‘AxB’ true.

Just as someone who understands an expression deﬁned in terms of another might know its deﬁnition, so someone who understands the imagined logical expression ‘x’ might know the stipulation which determines its meaning. So, one might think, we would then, simply on the basis of this linguistic knowledge, be in a position to know a priori that any sentence we might encounter of the form ‘AxB’ is true; after all, we know that the meaning of ‘x’ was determined by a stipulation that it mean whatever it must for sentences of this form to be true.

In practice, then, one would want to deﬁne all of mathematics in terms of truths essentially involving some small set of logical constants; Quine imagines that we have deﬁned mathematics in terms of the universal quantiﬁer, negation, and if-then. The next step would be to give stipulations for each of these constants from which all of the logical truths could be derived. Quine lays out some of these stipulations in detail; here we can just focus on one example, from p. 262:

(II) Let any expression be true which yields a truth when put for ‘q’ in the result of putting a truth for ‘p’ in ‘If p then q.’

This would be one of the stipulations used to deﬁne ‘if-then.’ How might this explain our a priori knowledge of some logical truths? Suppose we are given that ‘x’ and ‘if x, then y’ are true. It seems that we can deduce a priori from this that ‘y’ is true as well. The idea is that our ability to carry out this a priori deduction might be explained by our knowledge of the linguistic stipulation (II). For, after all, (II)

4

tells us that ‘if-then’ sentences are to have that meaning which guarantees that any expression ‘q’ be true whenever the expressions ‘p’ and ‘if p then q’ are true. We might then be able to go on to give similar stipulations which would provide similar explanations of our ability to know truths of logic a priori.

Given our earlier discussion of necessity and the a priori, we might regard this as a linguistic explanation both of a bit of a priori knowledge, and of a the necessary truth that if certain claims are true then another must be as well.

About this way of explaining our a priori knowledge of logic, Quine says

whereby logic itself is set up,

however, a diﬃculty remains to be faced. Each of these conventions is general, announcing the truth of every one of an inﬁnity of statements conforming to a certain description; derivation of the truth of any speciﬁc statement from the general convention thus requires a logical inference, and this involves us in an inﬁnite regress.” (270)

“In the adoption of the very conventions

We can see the point Quine is making here by laying out the above line of reasoning more explicitly. We are given as premises the following two claims:

P1. x

P2. If x then y

from which we can derive a priori the conclusion

C. y

The aim is to explain this bit of a priori knowledge; the suggestion is that we do so by appealing to knowledge of the linguistic stipulation (II); this is equivalent to adding (II) as a premise to the argument, so that we have the following chain of reasoning:

P1. x P2. If x then y P3. Any expression is true which yields a truth when put for ‘q’ in the result of putting a truth for ‘p’ in ‘If p then q.’

C. y

This inference is, as Quine notes, valid. The problem is that this is still, to put it bluntly, a logical inference. We were trying to explain how we were able to derive C from P1 and P2 a priori; we tried to do this by adding our knowledge of P3. But now we just have a new bit of a priori knowledge to explain: the inference from P1, P2, and P3 to C. This is Quine’s regress. He states it succinctly as follows:

“In a word, the diﬃculty is that if logic is to proceed mediately from conventions, logic is needed for inferring logic from the conventions. ”

(97)

5

There are an inﬁnite number of logical truths; our stipulations, if such there be, do not concern each of this inﬁnity of truths, but rather general claims about these truths. But then to derive a truth from these stipulations, we will always need a logical inference which cannot itself be explained by stipulation, even if the inference is the trivial one from ‘If S is a sentence of such-and-such form then S is true’ and ‘S is a sentence of such-and-such form’ to ‘S is true.’ The moral of the story is that logic cannot all be true by convention.

The similarity of Quine’s argument to Carroll’s ‘What the tortoise said to Achilles’ (as Quine notes in fn. 21).

As Quine also notes, the same regress can be restated as a problem about the deﬁ- nition of logical constants. We try to make logic true by convention by saying that we assign meanings to its expressions by stipulating that certain forms of sentences should be true. But

“the diﬃculty which appears thus as a self-presupposition of doctrine

can be framed as turning upon a self-presupposition of primitives. If is supposed that the if-idiom, the not-idiom, the every-idiom, and so on,

mean nothing to us initially, and that we adopt conventions

of circumscribing their meaning; and the diﬃculty is that [these conven- tions] themselves depend upon free use of those very idioms which we are attempting to circumscribe, and can succeed only if we are already conversant with the idioms.”

by way

The examples of deﬁning ‘and’ using a truth table, or deﬁning the universal quantiﬁer.

Quine’s moral is that we can make no sense of the claims of positivists to explain the necessity and a prioricity of logic in terms of convention. If he is right, then Ayer’s attempt to make mathematics and logic safe for empiricism fails.

6

- DeductionCaricato daTiadivad
- Mind - The Big ViewCaricato daCharmaine Tay
- Freedom and Necessity Philo 1Caricato daRexMenard81388
- ddCaricato daparlate
- How to Ask a Smart QuestionCaricato dadleon72
- Bell, Philosophy of MathematicsCaricato daflores3831_814460512
- Categories and Logical Forms in KantCaricato daCesare Poulain
- Cantu. Bolzano & Kant PaperCaricato daBlaise09
- Hobart - Texte Est Un ConCaricato daMark Hobart
- The logical structure of the naya method of the Jainas* - Part 9Caricato dap.b3992
- The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method LF Ed. [1962]Caricato daMadu Biru
- McGinnCaricato davinstonsmit
- A. Vanzo - Kant on nominal definition k-s KANT 2010Caricato daDaniel Perrone
- 5 Propositions, Dispositions and Logical KnolwedgeCaricato daZINEB10
- Quine & Carnap - Dear Carnap, Dear Van.. the Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related WorkCaricato daLuciano Vaga
- _G11_G12_G23_textivity_2_2011_12Caricato daDarko Gazibara
- Assignment Direction WordsCaricato daStan Stans
- Vivarium - Vol Xli, No 1, 2003Caricato daManticora Venerabilis
- standard 3 artefactCaricato daapi-355090152
- 8Caricato daJD MANOEL
- Characteristics of Good ResearchCaricato daNanette A. Marañon-Sansano
- rp_1_4Caricato damac as mac
- WTTTCaricato daDebapriya Ghosh
- Aristotle on Plato's Receptacle<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE> <STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>ERROR</H1> <H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2> <HR noshade size="1px"> <P> While trying to process the request: <PRE> TEXT http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=Aristotle+on+Plato's+Receptacle.pdf HTTP/1.1 Host: www.scribd.com Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Accept: */* Origin: http://www.scribd.com X-CSRF-Token: acc3746c31faf70206745242a377392c3d1d4c24 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.64 Safari/537.31 X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest Referer: http://www.scribd.com/upCaricato daorlandofurioso2
- Logical AgentCaricato daQonet
- 08.11.17Caricato daLuka Megurine
- Miniguide-V2 Critical ThinkingCaricato daKen
- BEing the Titus ConceptCaricato dascotish
- 375233956-cbmCaricato daapi-395108206
- Socrates's TruthCaricato daJofel Delicana

- TRAN 6001S Syllabus0903 DoyleCaricato damishonew
- 1024220100103Caricato daBahare Shirzad
- трансформация литературнCaricato daDinaraSeichanova
- Oedipus Complex Made SimpleCaricato daNiina Keks
- Abelard_on_Mental.pdfCaricato daPaloma Hernández-Rubio
- Sigmund Freud 1.0Caricato daMark Jayson Guatno Jueves
- Translation NotesCaricato datpabbas
- Handbook of French SemanticsCaricato dalefft9
- SemanticsCaricato daAksendro Maximilian
- Equivalence in Translation Theories a Critical EvaluationCaricato daClaudia Rivas Barahona
- Peter Newmar Final SummeryCaricato daValentina Cicerchia
- Eduardo V. Flores- Ether and the Theory of RelativityCaricato daOppekee
- Hermeneutic Content Analysis: a method of textual analysisCaricato daInternational Journal of Business Marketing and Management
- Vittorio Villa - Theory_of_Legal_Interpretation_and_Conte.pdfCaricato daJuan José
- Pigeons at DaybreakCaricato daAina Zulkipli
- Lin 114 Exam 2 Review SheetCaricato daYorman Amador
- Tradutor draconicoCaricato daAvatar_Magus
- IMG_0007Caricato daBianca Darie
- Semantic ReviewCaricato daNovi Dyah Arisanti
- The Process of Translation for Dubbing in BrazilCaricato daDilma Machado
- Mnemonic TOPCaricato daJason Mantilla
- The New Higher HelperCaricato daAhmed Aweis
- Sports ExpressionsCaricato daTuyet Quach Anh
- On Being Shaken Adorno on Sublimation, Eckart GoebelCaricato daZappa Fã
- P14-1059Caricato dalikufanele
- AB Interviewd About His 2 BooksCaricato daRichard G. Klein
- English Spanish CognatesCaricato daDarry Plotnikova
- Sigmund FreudCaricato daMoidul Islam
- Ego PsychCaricato daDeneshVijay
- Cultural TranslationCaricato daEmma Fauziah

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.