back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 10931

[from 'Reference and Modality' by Willard Quine, in 26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / e. Anti scientific essentialism ]

Full Idea

To say an object is soluble in water is to say that it would dissolve if it were in water,..which implies that 'necessarily if x is in water then x dissolves'. Yet we do not know if there is a suitable sense of 'necessarily' into which we can so quantify.

Gist of Idea

We can't say 'necessarily if x is in water then x dissolves' if we can't quantify modally

Source

Willard Quine (Reference and Modality [1953], §4)

Book Reference

Quine,Willard: 'From a Logical Point of View' [Harper and Row 1963], p.158


A Reaction

This is why there has been a huge revival of scientific essentialism - because Krike seems to offer exacty the account which Quine said was missing. So can you have modal logic without rigid designation?