Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The Tarskian/Davidsonian approach to semantics is parsimo... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Tarskian/Davidsonian approach to semantics is parsimonious compared to propositional semantic theories

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Davidsonian truth-theoretic approach makes no use of intensions, Russellian propositions, or Fregean senses
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Propositional semantic theories require positing intensions, Russellian propositions, or Fregean senses as semantic entities
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidsonian truth theories require a satisfaction relation holding between sequences of objects and open sentences, which is itself a substantial ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The infinite sequences of objects posited by Tarski's recursive satisfaction clauses are no less ontologically costly than the structured propositions or intensions they are meant to replace.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parsimony comparisons must be made across the full ontological inventory of a theory, not merely by noting the absence of one category of posit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's truth-theoretic semantics requires axioms that pair expressions with extensions, but extensions (sets of possible satisfiers) implicitly invoke intensional distinctions to handle modal and attitude contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Foster's objection demonstrates that a Davidsonian T-theory requires supplementation with meaning-theoretic knowledge to connect truth conditions to understanding, reintroducing unexplained semantic primitives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that achieves surface parsimony only by displacing unexplained semantic work into its metatheory is not genuinely more parsimonious than theories that explicitly theorize those commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A theory that achieves surface parsimony only by displacing unexplained semantic...Davidson's truth-theoretic semantics requires axioms that pair expressions with ...Davidsonian truth theories require a satisfaction relation holding between seque...Foster's objection demonstrates that a Davidsonian T-theory requires supplementa...
    +4 moreShow less
    Parsimony comparisons must be made across the full ontological inventory of a th...Propositional semantic theories require positing intensions, Russellian proposit...The Davidsonian truth-theoretic approach makes no use of intensions, Russellian ...The infinite sequences of objects posited by Tarski's recursive satisfaction cla...

    Similar

    Natural logic is closer to Montagovian semantics than to FOL-based app...85%Logical semantics has a legitimate role to play in semantic theory84%Fregean semantics is well-supported as a theory of meaning84%Carnap's so-called 'syntactic' method in the Logical Syntax actually i...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: meaning
    View source passageHide passage
    One advantage of this sort of approach to semantics is its parsimony: it makes no use of the intensions, Russellian propositions, or Fregean senses assigned to expressions by the propositional semantic theories discussed above. Of course, as we saw above, these entities were introduced to provide a satisfactory semantic treatment of various sorts of linguistic constructions, and one might well wonder whether it is possible to provide a Tarskian truth theory of the sort sketched above for a natur
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit