more on this theme | more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If it is really true that definite descriptions have scopes whereas names do not, then Russell must be right to claim that definite descriptions are not names. If, however, this is not true, then it does no harm to treat descriptions as complex names.
Gist of Idea
We are only obliged to treat definite descriptions as non-names if only the former have scope
Source
David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.8)
Book Ref
Bostock,David: 'Intermediate Logic' [OUP 1997], p.375