Synthese

, Volume 142, Issue 3, pp 317–352 | Cite as

TRUTH AND DISQUOTATION

  • Richard G. HeckJr.
Article

Abstract

Hartry Field has suggested that we should adopt at least a methodological deflationism: “[W]e should assume full-fledged deflationism as a working hypothesis. That way, if full-fledged deflationism should turn out to be inadequate, we will at least have a clearer sense than we now have of just where it is that inflationist assumptions ... are needed”. I argue here that we do not need to be methodological deflationists. More pre-cisely, I argue that we have no need for a disquotational truth-predicate; that the word ‘true’, in ordinary language, is not a disquotational truth-predicate; and that it is not at all clear that it is even possible to introduce a disquotational truth-predicate into ordinary language. If so, then we have no clear sense how it is even possible to be a methodological deflationist. My goal here is not to convince a committed deflationist to abandon his or her position. My goal, rather, is to argue, contrary to what many seem to think, that reflection on the apparently trivial character of T-sentences should not incline us to deflationism.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Azzouni, Jody: 2001, ‘Truth Via Anaphorically Unrestricted Quantifiers’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 30, 329–354.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Kent: 2000, ‘Quantification, Qualification and Context: A Reply to Stanley and Szabo’, Mind and Language 15, 262–283.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, Donald: 1984, ‘On Saying That’, in his Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
  4. Donnellan, Keith: 1977, ‘The Contingent A Priori and Rigid Designators’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2, 12–27.Google Scholar
  5. Dummett, Michael: 1991a, ‘Frege’s Myth of the Third Realm’, in his Frege and Other Philosophers, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 249–262.Google Scholar
  6. Dummett, Michael: 1991b, The Logical Basis of Metaphysics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  7. Field, Hartry: 1986, ‘The Deflationary Conception of Truth’, in G. MacDonald and C. Wright (eds.), Fact, Science, and Morality, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 55–117.Google Scholar
  8. Field, Hartry: 1994, ‘Deflationist Views of Meaning and Content’, Mind 103, 249–285.Google Scholar
  9. Field, Hartry: 2001, Truth and the Absence of Fact, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Fiengo, Robert and Robert May: 1996, ‘Interpreted Logical Forms: A Critique’, Rivista di Linguistica 8, 349–374.Google Scholar
  11. Grover, Dorothy, Joseph Camp, and Nuel Belnap: 1975, ‘A Prosentential Theory of Truth’, Philosophical Studies 27, 73–125.Google Scholar
  12. Halbach, Volker: 1999, ‘Disquotationalism and Infinite Conjunctions’, Mind 108, 1–22.Google Scholar
  13. Higginbotham, James: 1986, ‘Linguistic Theory and Davidson’s Program in Semantics’, in E. LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
  14. Horwich, Paul: 1990, Truth, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Horwich, Paul: 1998, Meaning, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Larson, Richard, and Peter Ludlow: 1993, ‘Interpreted Logical Forms’, Synthese 95, 305–355.Google Scholar
  17. Soames, Scott: 1999, Understanding Truth, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Stanley, Jason, and Zoltan Szabó: 2000, ‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’, Mind and Language 15, 219–261.Google Scholar
  19. Wiggins, David: 1980, ‘What Would Be a Substantial Theory of Truth?’, in Zaak van Straaten (ed.), Philosophical Subjects, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 189–221.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard G. HeckJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyHarvard University CambridgeU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations