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
    Theory T ('∃x K(x)') and theory T* ('True(T)') mutually e... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The entailment account of ontological commitment captures ontological costs that the quantifier account misses.

    Theory T ('∃x K(x)') and theory T* ('True(T)') mutually entail one another, assuming 'K' is not a semantical predicate.

    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

    A philosopher cannot eliminate her commitment to Ks merely by switching from T t...On the entailment account, mutually entailing theories share the same ontologica...The entailment account of ontological commitment captures ontological costs that...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The quantifier account is blind to T*'s commitment to Ks because T* has no quant...
    +1 moreShow less
    Therefore, the quantifier account fails to capture implicit ontological commitme...

    Similar

    Sign theory corresponds to Speculative Grammar.86%A theory containing '∃x x = Obama' is ontologically committed to the e...84%The theory contains '∃x x = Obama', asserting Obama's existence.83%A theory containing '∃x x = {a, b}' is ontologically committed to the ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ontological-commitment
    View source passageHide passage
    For a stark illustration of the difference between entailment and quantifier accounts, consider a theory T that contains the single sentence ‘∃x K(x)’ and the theory T* that contains the single sentence ‘True(T)’ (see Peacock (2011: 81–2), who calls T* a “meta-theory”). T and T* mutually entail one another (assuming ‘K’ is not a semantical predicate); they thus have the same ontological commitments on an entailment account. And this seems right. Surely, a philosopher cannot eliminate her commit

    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