Re: Truth again

Article View: sci.philosophy.tech

Article #767

Back to sci.philosophy.tech Previous Next

#767

From: Erich Vandenloos
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:56

11 lines
1204 bytes

The thing I've had trouble with in Etchemendy is his insistence on
varying the meaning of the quantifiers. It seems like his points (def-
initely the point about cross-term restrictions, but seemingly other
ones as well) depend on the problems caused by varying quantifiers, but
I fail to see any motivation outside of his argument for ever varying
them. It seems like you'd run into plenty of trouble if you started
varying 'or' and 'not' too, but somehow it doesn't seem important. Maybe
you know something I don't? I could easily just be missing his point,
and if you could fill me in, I'd be thrilled.

Erich Vandenloos

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Dec20.085603.13125@u.washington.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!joechip

References: <1992Dec15.163846.5170@guinness.idbsu.edu> <1992Dec16.062548.11476@u.washington.edu> <BzE04L.8tx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!joechip
From: joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Truth again
Message-ID: <1992Dec20.085603.13125@u.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:56:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec20.085603.13125
References: <1992Dec15.163846.5170@guinness.idbsu.edu> <1992Dec16.062548.11476@u.washington.edu> <BzE04L.8tx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 11

Reply to Parent Message