Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

More on Putnam’s models: a reply to Belloti

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 23 December 2008

Abstract

In an earlier paper, I claimed that one version of Putnam's model-theoretic argument against realism turned on a subtle, but philosophically significant, mathematical mistake. Recently, Luca Bellotti has criticized my argument for this claim. This paper responds to Bellotti's criticisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bays, T. (2001). On Putnam and his models. The Jounal of Philosphy, 98, 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bays, T. (2007). Two arguments against realism. Forthcoming in The Philosophical Quarterly.

  • Bellotti, L. (2005). Putnam and constructibility. Erkenntnis, 62, 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haifman, G. (2004). Non-standard models in a broader perspective. In A. Enayat & R. Kossak (Eds.), Non-standard models of arithmetic and set theory (pp. 1–22). New York: American Mathematical Society.

  • Garcia-Carpintero, M. (1996). The model-theoretic argument: Another turn of the screw. Erkenntnis, 44, 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, M. (1997). Putnam on reference and constructible sets. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1983a). Models and Reality. In Realism and Reason. (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Putnam, H. (1983). Realism and Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Putnam, H. (1989). Model theory and the `factuality' of semantics. In A. George (Ed.), Reflections on Chomsky (pp. 213–231). Cambridge: Blackwell.

  • Velleman, D. (1998). Review of Levin, “Putnam on reference and constructible sets.” Mathematical Reviews, 98c, 1364.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA

    Timothy Bays

Authors
  1. Timothy Bays
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Bays.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-008-9152-8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bays, T. More on Putnam’s models: a reply to Belloti. Erkenntnis 67, 119–135 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-006-9025-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-006-9025-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation