This work suggests that absurd statements can be held true by pleading hallucination, and it also argues that the difference between the issue of whether there are classes and the issue of whether there are centaurs is merely a difference of degree. This paper points out that the statement "Brutus killed Caesar" would be false if the word "killed" meant "begat." This work notes that the terms "9" and "the number of planets" should be regarded as (*) unlike in meaning, despite designating the same abstract entity, and similarly argues that the terms "creature with a heart" and "creature with a kidney" are unlike in meaning even if they have the same extension. The central concepts argued against by this paper are reductionism and the distinction between analytic and
This work suggests that absurd statements can be held true by pleading hallucination, and it also argues that the difference between the issue of whether there are classes and the issue of whether there are centaurs is merely a difference of degree. This paper points out that the statement "Brutus killed Caesar" would be false if the word "killed" meant "begat." This work notes that the terms "9" and "the number of planets" should be regarded as (*) unlike in meaning, despite designating the same abstract entity, and similarly argues that the terms "creature with a heart" and "creature with a kidney" are unlike in meaning even if they have the same extension. The central concepts argued against by this paper are reductionism and the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. FTP, name this classic paper which argues against two principles of logical positivism, written by W.V.O. Quine.
This work suggests that absurd statements can be held true by pleading hallucination, and it also argues that the difference between the issue of whether there are classes and the issue of whether there are centaurs is merely a difference of degree.
“Two {Dogmas} of {Empiricism}”