Publikation:

Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument

Vorschaubild

Dateien

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

Datum

2010

Autor:innen

Herausgeber:innen

Kontakt

ISSN der Zeitschrift

Electronic ISSN

ISBN

Bibliografische Daten

Verlag

Schriftenreihe

Auflagebezeichnung

URI (zitierfähiger Link)
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-133707
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9131-9
ArXiv-ID

Internationale Patentnummer

Angaben zur Forschungsförderung

Projekt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Sammlungen

Philosophie: Publikationen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz

Gesperrt bis

Titel in einer weiteren Sprache

Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published

Erschienen in

Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2010, 39(5), pp. 531-556. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s10992-010-9131-9

Zusammenfassung

According to the standard opinions in the literature, blocking the unacceptable consequences of the notorious slingshot argument requires imposing constraints on the metaphysics of facts or on theories of definite descriptions (or class abstracts). This paper argues that both of these well-known strategies to rebut the slingshot overshoot the mark. The slingshot, first and foremost, raises the question as to the adequate logical formalization of statements about facts, i.e. of factual contexts. It will be shown that a rigorous application of Quine’s maxim of shallow analysis to formalizations of factual contexts paves the way for an account of formalizing such contexts which blocks the slingshot without ramifications for theories of facts or definite descriptions.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache

Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie

Schlagwörter

Slingshot argument, Logical formalization, Shallow analysis, Factual contexts

Konferenz

Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined

Forschungsvorhaben

Organisationseinheiten

Zeitschriftenheft

Zugehörige Datensätze in KOPS

Zitieren

ISO 690BAUMGARTNER, Michael, 2010. Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2010, 39(5), pp. 531-556. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s10992-010-9131-9
BibTex
@article{Baumgartner2010Shall-13370,
  year={2010},
  doi={10.1007/s10992-010-9131-9},
  title={Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument},
  number={5},
  volume={39},
  journal={Journal of Philosophical Logic},
  pages={531--556},
  author={Baumgartner, Michael}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/13370">
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:contributor>Baumgartner, Michael</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Baumgartner, Michael</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-05-23T10:01:21Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Publ. in: Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39 (2010), 5, pp. 531-556</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dcterms:title>Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">According to the standard opinions in the literature, blocking the unacceptable consequences of the notorious slingshot argument requires imposing constraints on the metaphysics of facts or on theories of definite descriptions (or class abstracts). This paper argues that both of these well-known strategies to rebut the slingshot overshoot the mark. The slingshot, first and foremost, raises the question as to the adequate logical formalization of statements about facts, i.e. of factual contexts. It will be shown that a rigorous application of Quine’s maxim of shallow analysis to formalizations of factual contexts paves the way for an account of formalizing such contexts which blocks the slingshot without ramifications for theories of facts or definite descriptions.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:issued>2010</dcterms:issued>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/13370"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-05-23T10:01:21Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Interner Vermerk

xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter

Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.

Prüfdatum der URL

Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation

Finanzierungsart

Kommentar zur Publikation

Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen