more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 9380

[filed under theme 12. Knowledge Sources / A. A Priori Knowledge / 8. A Priori as Analytic ]

Full Idea

If there is no sentence I must hold true if it is to mean what it does, then there is no basis on which to argue that I am entitled to hold it true without evidence.

Gist of Idea

We can't hold a sentence true without evidence if we can't agree which sentence is definitive of it

Source

Paul Boghossian (Analyticity Reconsidered [1996], §III)

Book Ref

-: 'Nous' [-], p.17


A Reaction

He is exploring Quine's view. Truth by convention depends on agreeing which part of the usage of a term constitutes its defining sentence(s), and that may be rather tricky. Boghossian says this slides into the 'dreaded indeterminacy of meaning'.


The 13 ideas from 'Analyticity Reconsidered'

There are no truths in virtue of meaning, but there is knowability in virtue of understanding [Boghossian, by Jenkins]
Epistemological analyticity: grasp of meaning is justification; metaphysical: truth depends on meaning [Boghossian]
'Snow is white or it isn't' is just true, not made true by stipulation [Boghossian]
The a priori is explained as analytic to avoid a dubious faculty of intuition [Boghossian]
Could expressions have meaning, without two expressions possibly meaning the same? [Boghossian]
If meaning depends on conceptual role, what properties are needed to do the job? [Boghossian]
'Conceptual role semantics' says terms have meaning from sentences and/or inferences [Boghossian]
A sentence may simultaneously define a term, and also assert a fact [Boghossian]
Conventionalism agrees with realists that logic has truth values, but not over the source [Boghossian]
If we learn geometry by intuition, how could this faculty have misled us for so long? [Boghossian]
That logic is a priori because it is analytic resulted from explaining the meaning of logical constants [Boghossian]
We can't hold a sentence true without evidence if we can't agree which sentence is definitive of it [Boghossian]
We may have strong a priori beliefs which we pragmatically drop from our best theory [Boghossian]