Lexicon of Arguments

 Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 24f
Semantic/logic/Cresswell: validity for natural language must be explained in natural language (not in formal language).
>Everyday language, >Formal language.
Then we have to accept another concept of validity.
>Validity.
CresswellVs strong thesis, that semantics is based on formal logic.
>Logic.
II 159
Intention-based semantics/Schiffer/Cresswell: (Schiffer, 1982(1) p. 120.) Cresswell: such semantics seem to argue that content could be defined only by means of objects.
>Intention-based semantics, >Paul Grice.
But you can also see it in a more neutral way: as a theory about how psychology is connected with semantics. (McGinn, 1982(2) pp. 243f.).
I 69
Semantics/Semantic models/Hughes/Cresswell: (E.g. T, S4, S5): Semantic models alone do not characterize the various meanings of necessity and possibility.
Semantic diagrams/Hughes/Cresswell: consider various worlds.


1. Schiffer, St. 1982. Intention-based Semantics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 23, 119-156.
2. McGinn, C. 1982. The Charactor of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.