Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Davidson argued that truth conditions for propositions are given by T-sentences, not by functions mapping arguments onto Fregean truth-values.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
T-sentences alone cannot explain truth-value gaps or indeterminacy, which functional approaches handle more naturally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Compositional semantic theory requires mapping functions to systematically derive complex propositions from simpler constituents.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Rejecting truth-value functions conflates semantic content with merely giving truth conditions, leaving compositionality underdetermined.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
T-sentences directly connect language to the world without requiring abstract Fregean truth-value objects that lack causal powers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Davidson's approach avoids the metaphysical burden of positing a realm of abstract entities independent of linguistic practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
T-sentences provide extensionally adequate truth conditions while preserving the disquotational character of truth itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.