On exhibiting representational validity


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Dateien Größe Format Anzeige

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

ZINKE, Alexandra, 2015. On exhibiting representational validity. In: Synthese. 192(4), pp. 1157-1171. ISSN 0039-7857. eISSN 1573-0964

@article{Zinke2015exhib-29885, title={On exhibiting representational validity}, year={2015}, doi={10.1007/s11229-014-0607-y}, number={4}, volume={192}, issn={0039-7857}, journal={Synthese}, pages={1157--1171}, author={Zinke, Alexandra} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/29885"> <dcterms:issued>2015</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:title>On exhibiting representational validity</dcterms:title> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">We can distinguish two non-equivalent ways in which a natural language argument can be valid: it can be interpretationally or representationally valid. However, there is just one notion of classical first-order validity for formal languages: truth-preservation in all classical first-order models. To ease the tension, Baumgartner (Synthese 191:1349–1373, 2014) suggests that we should understand interpretational and representational validity as imposing different adequacy conditions on formalizations of natural language arguments. I argue against this proposal. To that end, I first show that Baumgartner’s definition of representational validity is extensionally inadequate. I present a number of natural language arguments that we pre-theoretically hold to be representationally valid, but are not representationally valid according to Baumgartner’s definition. I then point to two further untenable features of Baumgartner’s definitions: (i) according to Baumgartner’s definition of a representationally correct formalization, we cannot arrive at formalizations in a recursive way, and (ii) Baumgartner’s definition of representational validity is non-monotonic. I conclude that interpretational and representational validity cannot be understood as merely imposing different adequacy conditions on formalizations. If we want to capture our interpretational and representational intuitions, we need two different formal definitions of validity.</dcterms:abstract> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/29885"/> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-02-19T10:12:14Z</dcterms:available> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-02-19T10:12:14Z</dc:date> <dc:creator>Zinke, Alexandra</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Zinke, Alexandra</dc:contributor> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Das Dokument erscheint in:

KOPS Suche


Mein Benutzerkonto