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 variables 'p' and 'q' stand for items that already co... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The propositional variables 'p' and 'q' have sentential status and can legitimately fill argument-slots of truth-functions

    The variables 'p' and 'q' stand for items that already contain a verb

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    The propositional variables 'p' and 'q' have sentential status and can legitimat...The variables 'p' and 'q' express a truth-bearer

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Free-standing uses of 'p' and 'q' in 'and p' and 'then q' lack a verb,...83%The variables 'p' and 'q' express a truth-bearer82%Free-standing instances of the variables 'p' and 'q' cannot fill the a...77%The propositional variables 'p' and 'q' have sentential status and can...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ramsey
    View source passageHide passage
    Ramsey (1929c, [OT] 9) anticipated a possible reaction to his use of propositional variables and to the translation of (4.1)–(4.3) as (4.1*)–(4.3*). The objection is the following: (4.1*)–(4.3*) cannot be English* counterparts of English sentences because they are not well-formed. Free-standing instances, the objection goes, of the variables ‘p’ and ‘q’ cannot fill the argument-slots of truth-functions, such as conjunction and material implication, which need complete sentences as arguments. F

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective