Jody Azzouni

Jody Azzouni argues that we involuntarily experience certain physical items, certain products of human actions, and certain human actions themselves as having meaning-properties. We understand these items as possessing meaning or as having truth values. For example, a sign on a door reading "Drinks Inside" strikes native English speakers as referring to liquids in the room behind the door. The sign has a truth value--if no drinks are found in the room, the sign is misleading. Someone pointing in a direction has the same effect: we experience her gesture as significant. Azzouni does not suggest that we don't recognize the expectations or intentions of speakers ; we do recognize that the person pointing in a certain direction intends for us to understand her gesture's significance. Nevertheless, Azzouni asserts that we experience that gesture as having significance independent of her intentions. The gesture is meaningful on its own. The same is true of language, both spoken and written. We experience the meanings of language artifacts as independent of their makers' intentions in the same way that we experience an object's shape as a property independent of the object's color. There is a distinctive phenomenology to the experience of understanding language, and Semantic Perception shows how this phenomenology can be brought to bear as evidence for and against competing theories of language.

Metaphysicians are among the very wiliest of philosophers. This means that an attack on a metaphysical position will fail if it only proceeds by showing that the posited objects are odd in some metaphysically significant way. To choose a pertinent example, if one wants to oppose the fictional realist, it isn’t enough to show that fictional entities have arbitrary individuation conditions, that they flit in and out of existence, or that they are far more numerous and varied than one imagines. As Eaker (2012) and Effingham (2012) remind us, the fictional realist and the metaphysical fundamentalist can agree that this is what fictional objects are like. It’s even insufficient to claim that such objects are mind- and language dependent, utterly dependent on our thinking of them (or on our coining terms that stipulatively ‘refer’ to them). Fictional realists and metaphysical fundamentalists can agree with this too, but deny these are sufficient conditions for non-existence.

The influential response of David Lewis to the rule-following problem (posthumously described as “reference magnetism”) is described. Three distinct approaches are traced to Lewis’s seminal papers. The first treats the world’s structure as metaphysically providing resources that supplement what individuals have to determine reference. Our words (concepts) have determinate reference beyond the psychological and neurophysiological resources of any individual, and beyond what any community of such individuals can manage on its own. The second treats interpreters of natural languages as required by semantic theory (along with background scientific practice) to impose determinate reference on the terms of those languages, along with natural kinds as the relata of the kind terms of those languages. The third treats the a priori constitutive imposition of natural kinds to be required by the Moorean facts of determinate reference and by semantic theories (that presuppose determinate reference) being “the only game in town.” I show that none of these approaches to reference magnetism work.

Philosophers are very fond of making non-factualist claims—claims to the effect that there is no fact of the matter as to whether something is the case. But can these claims be coherently stated in the context of classical logic? Some care is needed here, we argue, otherwise one ends up denying a tautology or embracing a contradiction. In the end, we think there are only two strategies available to someone who wants to be a non-factualist about something, and remain within the province of classical logic. But one of these strategies is rather controversial, and the other requires substantially more work than is often supposed. Being a non-factualist is no easy business, and it may not be the most philosophically perspicuous way to go.

Bradley Armour-Garb and James A. Woodbridge, in Pretense and Pathology, make an ambitious and far-ranging case that philosophical fictionalism (particularly the pretence variety that they favour) illuminates several long-standing philosophical puzzles posed by words in ordinary language, such as ‘exist’, ‘true’ and ‘means that’, as well as the more technical, ‘refers to’, ‘proposition’ and ‘satisfies’. Along the way, Armour-Garb and Woodbridge discuss topics in the philosophy of language, philosophical logic, ontology, epistemology and more. An important aspect of their project is its nominalist aspiration: by showing (if they do) that pretence is involved when we use the foregoing terms, they hope to show that it’s false that these uses induce ontological commitments (to, e.g., propositions or properties). In this respect, their pretence approach is yet another attempt to undercut the family of indispensability arguments (pioneered by W.V.O. Quine) that prima facie force ontological commitments by means of indispensable language usage.

Most philosophers of mathematics try to show either that the sort of knowledge mathematicians have is similar to the sort of knowledge specialists in the empirical sciences have or that the kind of knowledge mathematicians have, although apparently about objects such as numbers, sets, and so on, isn't really about those sorts of things as well. Jody Azzouni argues that mathematical knowledge really is a special kind of knowledge with its own special means of gathering evidence. He analyses the linguistic pitfalls and misperceptions philosophers in this field are often prone to, and explores the misapplications of epistemic principles from the empirical sciences to the exact sciences. What emerges is a picture of mathematics both sensitive to mathematical practice, and to the ontological and epistemological issues that concern philosophers.

Moore’s “Proof of an external world” and his “Four forms of scepticism” have long puzzled commentators. How are these adequate responses to sceptics? How, for that matter, is the so-called proof of an external world even pertinent to the challenge of scepticism? The notion of relativized burdens of proof is introduced: this is a burden of proof vis-à-vis one’s opponent that one takes on when trying to convince that someone of something. The relativized burden of proof is a making explicit the truism that if you argue with someone with the intent of trying to convince that someone of something, and if you fail to, you have not met your own conversational goal. Assuming Moore is implicitly relying on the notion of relativized burdens of proof illuminates his approach in these papers.

This chapter reviews Kripke’s original description of Wittgenstein’s paradox and its solution. Quite a bit of critical commentary has engaged with Kripke’s interpretation; but I’m not concerned with whether Kripke’s interpretation of Wittgenstein is right; I’m only concerned with Kripke’s puzzle, as he presents it. Two distinctions discussed in the chapter are Kripke’s description of straight and sceptical solutions, and that between grounding facts and correspondence facts. Three key discussions occur in the chapter. First, there is a discussion of Kripke’s three conditions on a straight solution to the paradox, the infinitude requirement, the justification requirement, and the mistake requirement. Second, there is a discussion of why dispositional approaches to the paradox don’t work. Third, there is a discussion of why a straight sociological solution doesn’t work. I engage as well with some of the critical commentary on rule following that has arisen subsequently to Kripke’s book.

Formalism shares with nominalism a distaste for _abstracta_. But an honest exposition of the former position risks introducing _abstracta_ as the stuff of syntax. This article describes the dangers, and offers a new escape route from platonism for the formalist. It is explained how the needed role of derivations in mathematical practice can be explained, not by a commitment to the derivations themselves, but by the commitment of the mathematician to a practice which is in accord with a theory of derivations.

ABSTRACT Recent discussions of Geach sentences by Braun and Salmon are reprised. It is shown that the intractability of providing semantics for Geach sentences (using standard logical tools) is due to the assumption that quantifiers are ontologically committing. Representing the content of these statements is easy using neutral quantifiers. An important concern is consistent identity conditions for nonreferring terms. It may be thought that Meinongian-object approaches handle this better than Azzouni's no-objects-in-any-sense-at-all approach. This is shown to be false. How our truth-inducing practices determine truth values for empty-term statements is indicated—in particular, it is argued that our identification and distinguishing practices with “fictional entities” are parasitic on our practices with entities we take to be real. Examples from Austin—white dots on the horizon and specks—are among the test cases for the views developed here.

I dub a certain central tradition in philosophy of language (and mind) the de re tradition. Compelling thought experiments show that in certain common cases the truth conditions for thoughts and public-language expressions categorically turn on external objects referred to, rather than on linguistic meanings and/or belief assumptions. However, de re phenomena in language and thought occur even when the objects in question don't exist. Call these empty de re phenomena. Empty de re thought with respect to numeration is explored in this paper, and such thought with respect to hallucinations is touched on.

While evaluating a version of the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument that's stronger than standard ones found in the literature, weak conditions for the dispensability of statements that quantify over mathematical entities - weaker than paraphrase - are argued for. These conditions are contoured to apply once a distinction between publicly held science and private belief is drawn. Dispensability projects face two problems: the representation problem and the deduction problem. The former is shown to be unsolvable. The deduction problem is no obstacle provided the representation problem can be solved. Because of the intractability of the latter problem, however, this is no comfort for nominalists committed to the dispensability of statements that quantify over mathematical entities. An important lesson is that "the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument" is concerned with practical dispensability not with in-principle dispensability. The assertoric use of a theory - by scientists - is a practical matter. © 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

If we must take mathematical statements to be true, must we also believe in the existence of abstract eternal invisible mathematical objects accessible only by the power of pure thought? Jody Azzouni says no, and he claims that the way to escape such commitments is to accept (as an essential part of scientific doctrine) true statements which are about objects that don't exist in any sense at all. Azzouni illustrates what the metaphysical landscape looks like once we avoid a militant Realism which forces our commitment to anything that our theories quantify. Escaping metaphysical straitjackets (such as the correspondence theory of truth), while retaining the insight that some truths are about objects that do exist, Azzouni says that we can sort scientifically-given objects into two categories: ones which exist, and to which we forge instrumental access in order to learn their properties, and ones which do not, that is, which are made up in exactly the same sense that fictional objects are. He offers as a case study a small portion of Newtonian physics, and one result of his classification of its ontological commitments, is that it does not commit us to absolute space and time.

This chapter addresses two remaining issues. The first is the apprehension that in undercutting reference-magnetism views the way I have, I’ve ruled out the possibility that the way the world sorts out for us empirically could be compatible with some version of correspondence metaphysics—an empirically-justified neat correspondence between language (kind terms, in particular) and the world. Previous chapters may also have given rise to the worry that my approach methodologically presupposes a God’s eye view while at the same time undercutting itself by officially regarding that viewpoint as one that neither we nor private rule-followers can make sense of. These issues are connected and I explore them both in this chapter. I also characterize two powerful and apparently conflicting ways of thinking about language, the contrastivist view and the noncontrastivist view. I don’t try to resolve which view is the right one.

First, I discuss the older “theory-centered” and the more recent semantic conception of scientific theories. I argue that these two perspectives are nothing more than terminological variants of one another. I then offer a new theory-centered view of scientific theories. I argue that this new view captures the insights had by each of these earlier views, that it’s closer to how scientists think about their own theories, and that it better accommodates the phenomenon of inconsistent scientific theories.

A phenomenological distinction is drawn between what is imaginable and what is conceivable (but not imaginable). This distinction is rooted, historically, in Descartes’ famous discussion of the piece of wax, and he describes as the difference between “imagination” and “intellection.” His example is described, but then the distinction is extended to a number of unexpected other kinds of cases. One is the experience of a native speaker of her own words. She can conceive of these words meaning differently than they do but she can’t imagine this. So too, those brought up with forks can’t imagine experiencing them as objects without a function; although an experience like that is conceivable. The final class of important examples is the conceivability of borders of objects being elsewhere than we experience them to be. One surprising result of the analysis of these examples in this paper is that what’s conceivable isn’t a guide to metaphysical possibility; it’s not even a guide to possible experience.

There are several epistemic distinctions among truths that I have argued for in this paper. First, there are those truths which holdof every rationally accessible conceptual scheme (class A truths). Second, there are those truths which holdin every rationally accessible conceptual scheme (class B truths). And finally, there are those truths whose truthvalue status isindependent of the empirical sciences (class C truths). The last category broadly includes statementsabout systems and the statements they contain, as well as statements true by virtue of the rules of language itself.At the risk of anachronism, I'll describe the positions of Carnap (1956); Quine (1980); Grice et al. (1956); the various Putnam's and myself in terms of the above distinctions: both Carnap and Quine (pretty much) think there are no class A or class B truths. Both Putnam (1975) and Putnam (1983c) think there are class A and class B truths, and that these classes overlap. I deny there are class B truths but affirm the existence of class A truths (although I haven't given explicit examples of the latter here). Finally, everyone here but Quine (1980) thinks there are class C truths (of one sort or another). Putnam (1975) attempts to show that certain class C truths are simultaneously class A and class B truths. Grice et al. (1956) take pains to distinguish the claim that there are class C truths from the claim that there are class A truths, and claim (against Quine, 1980) that no argument showing there are no class A truths shows there are no class C truths.On my interpretation of Quine (1980) he thinks that the nonexistence of class A truths shows there are no class C truths-given the extra bit of argument that a notion of ‘true by convention’ or ‘true by virtue of meaning’ without epistemic content, is a distinction without significance. But that issue, which is the one Grice et al. (1956) are concerned with, has not been the focus in this paper-and so in a sense I have shifted the terms of the original debate.Here I have been primarily concerned to distinguish epistemic notions and sort out how and in what ways they relate to each other. A primary tool in this exercise has been the explicit recognition that formal models of truth make universality an unlikely property of our conceptual schemes. If I have not convinced anyone that the epistemic notions sort out the way I think they do, I hope at least that some burden-shifting has occurred: that philosophers do not either take it for granted that certain notionsmust be expressible in any conceptual scheme or treat the fact that conceptual schemes must be (in some sense) limited as of little (philosophical) moment.On the other hand, if I am right about the epistemology, it follows that previous attempts to mark out the necessary structures in rationally accessible conceptual schemes via a priori truths is hopeless. What I think must replace their role, what I call globally incorrigible sets of sentences, is a topic for another time.