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
    Under Goodman and Quine's formalism, such sentences would... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Formalist positions of Goodman and Quine's persuasion are refuted by reductio ad absurdum

    Under Goodman and Quine's formalism, such sentences would be neither true nor false

    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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A consequence that destroys current mathematical practice constitutes a reductio...Formalist positions of Goodman and Quine's persuasion are refuted by reductio ad...There exist sentences (such as the Fermat-like primality claim) that are decidab...Treating decidable mathematical sentences as neither true nor false would requir...
    +1 moreShow less
    Under Goodman and Quine's formalism, a sentence is true or false only if a concr...

    Similar

    Under Goodman and Quine's formalism, a sentence is true or false only ...90%The sentence 'This sentence is false' is true if and only if it is fal...81%Either (s) is false or (s) is not false, so in either case (s) is fals...80%The sentence 'Barack Obama is a Democrat' is true and 'Barack Obama is...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: formalism-mathematics
    View source passageHide passage
    (That is—with ‘2^\(n\)’ representing ‘2 to the power \(n\)’—‘[2^(2^(2^(2^(2^2))))]\(+1\) is prime’; cf. Tennant, 1997 p. 152.) They cannot deny the sentence exists, for there is the token before our very eyes. But there are strong grounds for thinking that no concrete proof or disproof will exist, for the only methods available may use up more time, space and material than any human could have at her disposal, perhaps than actually exists. There are countless sentences with this property: concre

    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