Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author![]() |
Entry![]() |
Reference![]() |
---|---|---|---|
Bivalence | Wright Vs Bivalence | I 62 WrightVsBivalence: (C) Either there is evidence for P or there is evidence for its negation. wright: if we cannot assume that evidence either exists or does not exist for any given statement, then the convertibility of the lack of evidence need not necessarily lead to C, and therefore need not contradict the fact that the assertion a priori is not justifiable that the scales of the principally available evidence eventually tilt in one direction or the other. If this is true, two consequences must impress the advocates of semantic anti-realism: Here is the problem: that it is precisely the sentence of the excluded middle that should not be assertible! It would not be enough just to reject the principle of bivalence (t/f). If (B) either there is evidence for P or there is none that is fully assertible, the embarrassment will reappear: the logic must be revised for all cases where evidence is not guaranteed. |
WrightCr I Crispin Wright Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge 1992 German Edition: Wahrheit und Objektivität Frankfurt 2001 WrightCr II Crispin Wright "Language-Mastery and Sorites Paradox" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 WrightGH I Georg Henrik von Wright Explanation and Understanding, New York 1971 German Edition: Erklären und Verstehen Hamburg 2008 |
![]() |