Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T19:20:51.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRUTH-FUNCTIONALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

BENJAMIN SCHNIEDER
BENJAMIN SCHNIEDER*
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
*
*HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN, INSTITUT FÜR PHILOSOPHIE, UNTER DEN LINDEN 6, D-10099 BERLIN. E-mail: b.schnieder@gmx.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is shown that the standard definitions of truth-functionality, though useful for their purposes, ignore some aspects of the usual informal characterisations of truth-functionality. An alternative definition is given that results in a stronger notion that pays attention to those aspects.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , June 2008 , pp. 64 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1992). The Language of First-Order Logic. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Cauman, L. S. (1998). First-Order Logic. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Correia, F. (2005). Existential Dependence and Cognate Notions. Munich: Philosophia.Google Scholar
Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235–329.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1995). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269–290.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (2005). Truth without truthmaking entities. In Beebee, H., & Dodd, J., editors, (2005), Truthmakers—The Contemporary Debate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 33–47.Google Scholar
Humberstone, L. (1986). Extensionality in sentence position. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15, 27–54.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1988). Explanatory realism, causal realism, and explanatory exclusion. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 12, 225–240.Google Scholar
Künne, W. (2003). Conceptions of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). Causal explanation. In Lewis, D., editor. Philosophical Papers II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–240.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (1998). The Possibility of Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McFetridge, I. G. (1977). Truth, correspondence, explanation and knowledge. In McFetridge, I. G., editor (1990). Logical Necessity. London: Longdunn Press.Google Scholar
Morreal, J. (1979). The evidential use of because. Papers in Linguistics, 12, 231–238.Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1985). Logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1982). Methods of Logic (4th edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. (2001). Logical Forms (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schnieder, B. (2006a). A certain kind of trinity: Dependence, substance, explanation. Philosophical Studies, 129, 393–419.Google Scholar
Schnieder, B. (2006b). Truth-making without truth-makers. Synthèse, 152, 21–47.Google Scholar
Simons, P. (1987). Parts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tatzel, A. (2002). Bolzano's theory of ground and consequence. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 43, 1–25.Google Scholar